N 


4 


\ 


A  HISTORY  OF 

BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


ROBERT  WILLIAM  ROGERS 

PH.D.  (LEIPZIG),  LL.D.,  F.R.G.S.,  HON.  LITT.D.  UNIVERSITY 
OF  DUBLIN,  PROFESSOR  IN  DREW  THEOLOGICAL 
SEMINARY,  MADISON,  NEW  JERSEY 

SIXTH  EDITION 

IN  TWO  VOLUMES,  REVISED,  LARGELY  REWRITTEN, 
AND  ILLUSTRATED 


VOLUME  II 

THE  HISTORY  OF 

BABYLONIA,  ASSYRIA,  AND  CHALDEA 


THE  ABINGDON  PRESS 


NEW  YORK 


CINCINNATI 


Copyright,  1915,  by 
ROBERT  W.  ROGERS 


TO  MY  WIFE 

“I  give  this  faulty  book  to  you, 

For  tho’  the  faults  be  thick  as  dust 
In  vacant  chambers,  I  can  trust 
Y7our  woman’s  nature  kind  and  true.” 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/historyofbabylon02unse_2 


CONTENTS 


BOOK  II:  THE  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA 

CHAPTER  1 

Early  Sumerian  History 

page 

Difficulty  of  the  subject .  1 

Early  cities  of  Babylonia .  2 

Religious  impulses  of  conquest .  3 

Early  names  of  Sumerian  country .  4 

Early  inhabitants,  Sumerians  and  Semites . 5,6 

Original  home  of  the  Sumerians .  7 

The  first  Sumerian  ruler,  Utug .  8 

Mesilim .  9 

Lugal-tarsi,  Urzage,  and  Ur-Nina .  10 

Akurgal,  Eannatum . 11,  12 

Enannatum  I,  Urlumma .  13 

Entemena . 14,  15 

Later  patesis;  Lugal-anda .  16 

Urukagina;  social  reforms . 16-19 

Umma  attacks  Lagash .  19 

Lugal-zaggisi  and  his  empire . 19-22 

En-shag-kush-ana .  22 

Sumerian  supremacy  and  civilization . 23,  24 

CHAPTER  II 
The  Empire  of  Sargon  I 

The  romantic  figure  of  Sargon  1 .  25 

Legend  of  Sargon . 26-28 

His  first  campaigns,  Dur-ilu,  Kasalla . 28,  29 

Campaigns  against  Susa;  famine .  30 

Manishtusu,  his  obelisk,  social  works .  31 

Urumush  and  Naram-Sin .  32 

Naram-Sin’s  campaign  in  Arabia .  33 

Anu-banini .  34 

vii 


VI 11 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

N aram-Sin  as  a  builder . 34,  35 

Shargali-sharri,  western  invasion .  36 

Building  operations;  works  of  art.  . . 37,  38 

The  end  of  the  dynasty .  39 

Dynasty  of  Erech . 39,  40 

CHAPTER  III 

Babylonian  History  to  the  Fall  of  Larsa 

Patesis  of  Lagash . 41 

Ur-Bau . 42,  43 

Gudea;  sources .  43 

Gudea’s  temple  to  Ningirsu . 44,  45 

Conquest  of  Anshan .  46 

Installation  of  deities,  statue  of  Lugal-kisalsi .  47 

Culmination  of  Sumerian  civilization;  Ur  dominant .  48 

Ur,  and  its  favorable  situation .  49 

Lugal-kigub-nidudu;  Ur-Engur,  Dungi .  50 

A  new  empire  founded .  51 

Great  works  of  Ur-Engur .  52 

Reign  of  Dungi . 53-59 

Bur-Sin  1 .  59 

Gimil-Sin .  60 

Ibi-Sin .  61 

Semitic  influence;  Arad  Sin . 62 

Ishbi-ura,  Idin-Dagan .  63 

Libit  Ishtar,  Ur-Ninib .  64 

Bur-Sin  II,  Iter-kasha,  Ellil-bani,  Damik-ilishu .  65 

Sin-muballit  and  Damik-ilishu .  66 

Kudur-nankhundi  and  the  Elamite  raids .  67 

Kudur-Mabuk;  Eri  Aku  (Arad-Sin) .  68 

Rim-Sin .  69 

Summary  of  Sumerian  civilization . 70-72 

CHAPTER  IV 

The  First  and  Second  Dynasties  of  Babylon 

The  origin  of  Babylon;  its  rise  to  supremacy . 73,  74 

The  Amorites  and  their  early  threats . 75,  76 

Reign  of  Sumu-abi;  Sumu-la-ilu . 77,  78 

Zabum,  Apil-Sin .  79 

Sin-muballit .  80 


CONTENTS  ix 

PAGE 

Hammurapi  and  his  first  campaign . 80,  81 

Conquest  of  Rim-Sin . 82,  83 

Wide  extent  of  his  rule;  Amraphel .  83 

Arioch,  Chedorlaomer,  Tidal .  85 

Administration  of  Hammurapi ;  code  of  laws . 86-89 

Building  operations .  90 

The  golden  age;  Samsu-iluna . 91-95 

Abeshu  (Ebishum) . 95,  96 

Ammiditana .  96 

Ammisaduga,  Samsuditana . 97,  98 

CHAPTER  V 
The  Kassite  Dynasty 

Conquest  of  Babylon  by  the  Kassites . 99-101 

List  of  the  Kassite  kings;  Gandish .  102 

First  six  Kassite  kings .  103 

Tashshigurumash ;  Agum  II . 104,  105 

Conquests  of  Agum  II . 106,  107 

Lacuna . 108,  109 

The  Assyrian  commonwealth .  110 

Naharina,  Mitanni . 111-113 

Kardunyash .  113 

Karaindash  I,  contact  with  Assyria . 114,  115 

Kadashman-Ellil . 116,  117 

Kurigalzu  II . 118,  119 

Burnaburiash  II . .119,  120 

Karaindash  II . 120,  121 

Nazibugash  (Shuzigash),  Kurigalzu  III .  121 

Nazi-Maruttash,  Kadashman-Turgu .  122 

Invasion  of  Babylon  by  Tukulti-Ninib . 123,  124 

Adad-shum-usur,  Meli-Shipak  II .  125 

End  of  the  Kassite  dynasty .  126 

CHAPTER  VI 
The  Dynasty  of  Isin 

Origin  of  the  dynasty  unknown  . .  127 

Marduk-shapik-zerim .  128 

Nebuchadrezzar  I . 129,  130 

Marduk-nadin-akhe  and  Tiglathpileser  I . 130,  131 

Itti-Marduk-balatu,  Marduk-shapik-zer-mati . 131,  132 


X 


CONTENTS 


BOOK  III:  THE  HISTORY  OF  ASSYRIA 

CHAPTER  I 

The  Beginnings  of  Assyria 

page 

Early  rulers  styled  Patesi .  133 

Meaning  of  the  word;  settlement  at  Asshur .  134 

The  city’s  fine  site;  temple  of  Ashur .  135 

Ushpia,  Kikia  early  patesis . . .  136 

Shalim-akhum,  llu-shuma .  137 

Irishum,  Ikunum .  138 

Shamshi-Adad  1 .  139 

Ashir-nirari  I,  Ashir-rim-nisheshu .  140 

Bel-kapkapu,  Bel-bani .  141 

Puzur-Ashir  I,  Ashirbelnisheshu .  142 

Invasion  of  Thutmosis  III,  Shaushatar,  king  of  the  Mitanni .  .  .  143 

Ashur-uballit  II  marries  daughter  to  Karaindash  II .  144 

Friendly  relations  with  Egypt .  145 

Ellil-nirari . 146 

Arik-den-ilu .  147 

Adad-nirari  1 . 148,  149 

Shalmaneser  1 . 150-154 

Tukulti-Ninib  1 . 154-157 

The  progress  of  Assyria . 158,  159 

The  decline  of  Assyria .  160 

Ashurdan,  Mutakkil-Nusku . 161 

Ashur-rish-ishi . 161-163 

Tiglathpileser  I  succeeds  to  the  throne .  164 

CHAPTER  II 

Tiglathpileser  I  and  His  Sons 

Sources  for  his  reign .  165 

Campaign  against  the  Mushke . 166-168 

War  against  Kummukh . 168-170 

Campaigns  in  Kharia,  Qurkhi,  Nairi .  171 

The  successes  in  the  Nairi  territories .  172 

Aramaeans;  Musri .  173 

Summary  of  his  five  campaigns . . 174,  175 

His  works  of  peace . 175,  176 

Shamshi-Adad  IV . 176-178 

Period  of  silence . 178,  179 


CONTENTS 


xi 


CHAPTER  III 

The  Increase  of  Assyrian  Power  Over  Babylonia 


page 

Dynasty  of  the  Sea  Lands . 180,  181 

Dynasty  of  Bazi . 181 

Elamite  ruler  of  Babylonia .  182 

Characteristics  of  this  forty-six  year  period .  183 

Nabu-mukin-apli .  184 

Aramaean  movements . 185-187 

Formation  of  the  Hebrew  kingdom .  188 

Ashurnazirpal  II,  Shalmaneser  II,  Tiglathpileser  III .  189 

Ashurdan  II,  Adad-nirari  III,  Tukulti-Ninib  II .  190 

Campaigns  of  Tukulti-Ninib  II . 191,  192 


CHAPTER  IV 

The  Reign  of  Ashurnazirpal 


State  of  the  kingdom  on  his  accession .  193 

Historical  material . 194 

Campaign  into  land  of  Numme .  195 

Kirruri,  Qurkhi .  196 

Kummukh,  Bit  Khalupe . 197,  198 

Campaigns  of  ferocity .  199 

Northwestern  campaigns . 200,  201 

A  note  of  construction,  Atlila .  202 

Tribute  collecting . 203-205 

Victory  in  Suri . 205,  206 

Nabu-apal-iddin  and  his  work  in  Sippar .  207 

Ashurnazirpal  suppresses  revolts . 208,  209 

Organization  of  tribute  payments . 210,  211 

The  standing  army  and  its  use . 211,  212 

The  great  western  campaign . 212-217 

Kummukh,  Kirkhi .  218 

Works  of  peace;  Calah . 219-221 


CHAPTER  V 

Shalmaneser  III  to  Ashur-nirari  II 

Sources  for  the  reign . 222,  223 

The  army;  the  Aramaean  question . 223,  224 

Western  Aramaean  states,  Hamath,  Damascus .  225 

Description  of  western  campaign,  Monolith  inscription . 226-228 


Xll 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Course  of  the  campaign  to  Qarqar .  229 

The  battle  of  Qarqar . 230,  231 

Campaigns  of  849,  846,  842 . 231,  232 

Campaign  of  839 .  234 

Urartu . 235-239 

Campaign  against  Namri,  and  Media . 239-241 

Attack  upon  Babylonia . 241-243 

Building  operations . 243-245 

Artistic  work . 245,  246 

Temple  building . 246-248 

Troubled  end  of  the  great  reign . 248-250 

Shamshi-Adad  V  and  his  first  campaign .  250 

The  lands  of  Nairi .  251 

To  the  Mediterranean;  Media,  Babylonia .  252 

Fighting  in  Babylonia . 253,  254 

Sammuramat  (Semiramis) .  254 

Adad-nirari  IV  attacks  Damascus . 255 

Against  the  Medes,  and  Babylonia .  256 

Building  operations . .  257 

Sammuramat  mentioned  again .  258 

Decline  in  Assyrian  power;  Shalmaneser  IV .  259 

Ashurdan  III .  260 

Eclipse  of  763  B.  C .  261 

Ashur-nirari  V ;  rebellion  in  Calah . 262 

CHAPTER  VI 

The  Reigns  of  Tiglathpileser  IV  and  Shalmaneser  V 

The  great  change  in  746 . 263,  264 

Humble  origin  of  Tiglathpileser  IV .  265 

The  vandalism  of  Esarhaddon;  sources  of  this  reign . 266,  267 

The  first  campaigns  into  Babylonia,  Nabonassar.  . .  268 

Great  victory  in  Babylonia . 269,  270 

Campaigns  in  the  east . 271-273 

The  development  of  Urartu .  273 

Tiglathpileser  attacks  the  northern  problem . 274-277 

The  attack  upon  Arpad . 277-279 

Campaign  into  the  lands  of  Nairi .  279 

Azariah  of  Yaudi,  leader  of  a  coalition .  280 

Tiglathpileser  attacks . 281-283 

Aramaean  revolts . 283,  284 

'The  campaign  against  Urartu  and  its  failure . 284,  285 

In  the  west,  Ashdod,  Gaza . 285-287 


CONTENTS 


xm 

PAGE 

The  danger  to  western  Asia .  288 

The  Syro-Ephraimitic  war .  289 

Ahaz  secures  Assyrian  help .  290 

Tiglathpileser  invades  Samaria .  291 

Israel  subjugated;  Arabia  invaded . 292,  293 

Damascus  taken .  293 

Peace  in  Babylonia .  294 

Disturbance  in  Babylonia .  295 

Babylonia  invaded  (731) .  296 

Balasu  (Belesys),  Merodach-baladan .  297 

Tiglathpileser  proclaimed  in  Babylon  (Pulu,  Poros) . 298,  299 

Building  operations . 299,  300 

Estimate  of  his  career . 300,  301 

Shalmaneser  V  succeeds . 301,  302 

Hoshea,  and  the  west . 302,  303 

Troubled  conditions  in  Egypt . 303-305 

Hoshea  intrigues  with  Sibe . 306,  307 

Hoshea  rebels .  307 

Shalmaneser  invades  Israel .  308 

Estimate  of  Shalmaneser’s  reign . 309,  310 

CHAPTER  VII 
The  Reign  of  Sargon  II 

Sargon’s  family  origin .  311 

The  political  situation  at  the  beginning  of  his  reign . 312 

The  sources  for  his  reign .  313 

The  Fall  of  Samaria .  314 

Colonization  of  the  territory .  315 

Sargon  begins  assault  on  Babylon,  but  fails . 316,  317 

Rebellion  in  Hamath . 318,  319 

Campaigns  in  Urartu . 320,  321 

Fall  of  Carchemish . 321,  322 

Further  colonizations  in  Syria;  the  Samaritans .  322 

Great  campaigns  in  Urartu . 323-327 

Tribute  collection  in  Arabia .  328 

Campaign  against  Rusas  of  Urartu  (714) . 328-330 

Urartu  (Chaldia)  and  civilization . 331,  332 

Rebellion  in  Media .  332 

Tabal,  and  Cilicia .  333 

Egyptian  plotting  in  Syria . 334,  335 

General  results  of  Saigon’s  reign .  336 

Problems  in  Babylonia,  Merodach-baladan . 336-339 


XIV 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Sargon  attacks . 339-341 

Sargon  shakkanak  (governor)  of  Babylon .  341 

Victory  in  Babylonia . 342,  343 

Que,  Urartu . 344,  345 

Ellipi  (Ishpabara) . " .  345 

The  migration  of  Gomer . 346,  347 

Works  of  peace  in  Sargon’ s  reign . 348-351 

CHAPTER  VIII 
The  Reign  of  Sennacherib 

Sources  for  the  reign . 352,  353 

A  new  policy  in  Babylonia . 354-359 

The  schemes  of  Merodach-baladan .  357 

Invasion  of  Babylonia . 358,  359 

Median  campaign .  360 

The  great  invasion  of  the  west . 361-373 

New  difficulties  in  Babylonia . 373-375 

Military  operations  in  Cilicia . 375,  376 

Campaign  to  destroy  the  Chaldeans .  377 

Sennacherib  in  Elam .  378 

Mushezib-Marduk,  king  in  Babylon .  379 

Battle  of  Khalule .  380 

Babylon  taken  and  destroyed . 381-383 

Invasion  of  Arabia;  Tirhaka .  384 

Pestilence  and  retreat . 385,  386 

Failure  of  western  campaign ;  death  of  Sennacherib .  387 

Works  of  peace;  Nineveh . 388-392 

CHAPTER  IX 
The  Reign  of  Esarhaddon 

Sources  for  the  reign . 393,  394 

Esarhaddon  as  governor  of  Babylon,  change  of  policy . 394,  395 

Rebuilding  of  Babylon .  396 

Chaldean  and  Elamite  difficulties . 397-399 

First  western  campaign . 400-402 

Booty  from  Sidon .  403 

Siege  of  Tyre . 404-406 

Invasion  of  Egypt . 407,  408 

The  great  victory,  plunder  of  Memphis .  40S 


CONTENTS 


xv 

PAGE 

Reorganization  of  the  government .  409 

Campaign  against  Melukhkha . 410,  411 

Changes  in  Aribi . 411,  412 

Indo-European  migrations . 412-416 

Threatening  movements  of  these  invaders . 417,  418 

Esarhaddon’s  forceful  action .  419 

Rebellion  in  Assyria;  new  invasion  of  Egypt .  420 

Arrangements  for  the  succession . 421-423 

Death  of  Esarhaddon,  his  career . 423,  424 

Works  of  peace . 424-426 


CHAPTER  X 

The  Reign  of  Ashurbanipal 

Sources  for  the  reign . 427,  428 

Expedition  into  Elam . .  .  429 

Difficulties  with  Egypt . 430-432 

Pacification  by  force .  433 

Tanut-Amon  (Tandamani) . 434,  435 

Difficulty  of  ruling  Egypt . 435,  436 

Tyre  surrenders .  437 

Embassy  from  Lydia .  438 

Cimmerian  victory  over  Gyges .  439 

Akhsheri  of  Man;  Elam . 439,  440 

Elamite  campaign .  441 

The  Gambuli .  442 

Shamash-shum-ukin  ruling  in  Babylonia . 443,  444 

His  rebellion .  445 

The  unwise  manner  of  it . 446,  447 

Open  war  by  Shamash-shum-ukin .  448 

Ashurbanipal’ s  dream .  449 

Shamash-shum-ukin  dies;  Ashurbanipal  enters  Babylon .  450 

Terrible  punishment  of  the  Babylonians .  451 

Elam  invaded . 452-456 

Savage  treatment  of  Elamites . 456,  457 

Punishment  of  Arabians . 458-460 

Manasseh  of  Judah .  460 

Urartu  on  friendly  terms  with  Assyria .  461 

Great  works  of  peace .  462 

The  library .  463 

Achievements  in  sculpture .  464 

Ceremonies  for  victory;  death .  465 

Commerce  and  culture . 466-468 


xvi  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  XI 
The  Fall  op  Assyria 


Ashur-etil-ili . 469-471 

Sin-shum-lishir .  471 

Sin-shar-ishkun . 471-474 

The  Manda  and  the  Medes . 474,  475 

Threats  against  Nineveh,  Nabopolassar .  476 

The  Medes  begin  the  attack . 477,  478 

The  fall  of  the  city  and  its  looting . 479,  480 

Later  settlements  on  the  site  of  Nineveh .  481 

Division  of  Assyrian  territory . 482 


BOOK  IV:  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE 
CHALDEAN  EMPIRE 

CHAPTER  I 

The  Reign  op  Nabopolassar 


Ashurbanipal  (Kandalanu) .  483 

Babylonian  characteristics . 484,  485 

The  Chaldean  people . 486-492 

Nabopolassar,  king  of  Babylon;  origin;  sources . 492,  493 

Beginnings  under  Assyrian  suzerainty . 494,  495 

Egyptian  invasion  of  Western  Asia . 496,  497 

Necho  II  conquers  Judah,  Josiah  falls . 498,  499 

Necho  makes  a  second  invasion .  500 

Conquered  at  Carchemish  by  Nebuchadrezzar .  501 

The  achievements  of  Nabopolassar . . . 502,  503 


CHAPTER  II 

The  Reign  of  Nebuchadrezzar 


Nebuchadrezzar  ascends  throne  without  trouble . 504,  505 

Judah  ceases  to  pay  tribute,  and  is  attacked .  506 

Jehoiachin  surrenders  Jerusalem .  507 

Hophra,  king  of  Egypt .  508 

Incites  Syro-Phcenician  states  to  rebel .  509 

Judah  ready  to  join,  is  opposed  by  Jeremiah . 510-4)12 

The  city  of  Jerusalem  besieged . 512-516 


CONTENTS 


xvn 

PAGE 


Battle  with  the  Egyptians . 516,  517 

Jerusalem  besieged  again  and  taken.  .  .  . . 517,  518 

Zedekiah  punished .  519 

Jerusalem  destroyed . . . 520,  521 

Deportation;  Gedaliah  as  prince . 521,  522 

The  folly  of  Jerusalem's  destruction .  523 

The  long  menace  of  the  Assyro- Babylonians .  524 

Nebuchadrezzar  against  Tyre . 525-528 

Invasion  of  Egypt . 528-530 

The  small  campaigns  of  Nebuchadrezzar . 531,  532 

Sources  for  this  reign . 532,  533 

The  great  building  operations,  the  city  walls . 532-536 

The  palaces . 536,  537 

The  temples . 537,  538 

Canal  building . 538,  539 

Building  at  Borsippa . 540,  541 

Death  of  Nebuchadrezzar .  542 

The  character  of  the  man . 543,  544 

CHAPTER  III 

The  Last  Years  of  the  Chaldean  Empire 

Amil-Marduk  (Evil  Merodach)  becomes  king .  545 

Releases  Jehoiachin .  546 

Nergal-shar-usur  (Neriglissor),  king .  547 

Builds  canal .  548 

Labashi-Marduk,  king .  549 

Nabonidus,  king;  sources . 550,  551 

The  king’s  archaeological  interests . 552,  553 

Bel-shar-usur  (Belshazzar) . 554,  555 

The  restoration  of  E-babbara . 556-558 

Restoration  of  E-ulmash .  558 

The  temple  of  Sin  in  Harran . 559-561 

The  rise  of  the  Medes . 561-563 

Cyrus,  his  rapid  rise  to  power . 563-566 

Cyrus  attacks  Croesus . 566-568 

Cyrus  prepares  to  absorb  Babylonia .  568 

Nabonidus  unprepared . 569,  570 

Cyrus  in  northern  Babylonia  (539) .  571 

Nabonidus  saves  the  gods .  572 

Babylon  taken  without  a  blow .  573 

Cyrus  makes  triumphal  entry .  574 

The  end  of  a  glorious  history . 575,  576 


xviii  CONTENTS 


APPENDIX 

PAGE 

A.  Literature 

1.  Excavations  and  Decipherment . 577,  578 

2.  The  Script  and  Languages . 578,  579 

3.  Literature .  580 

4.  Chronology .  580 

5.  History . 581-584 

Current  Bibliography .  585 

B.  The  Destruction  of  Sennacherib’s  Army  (Herodotus) .  586 

C.  The  Defenses  of  Babylon . .587-590 

The  East  India  House  Inscription . 590-593 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


FACING  PAGE 

Stele  of  Vultures  (Eannatum) .  11 

Silver  Vase  of  Entemena .  15 

Obelisk  of  Manishtusu  .  31 

Triumphal  Stele  of  Naram-Sin .  33 

Door  Socket  of  Naram-Sin .  34 

Mace  Head  of  Shargali-sharri .  38 

Clay  Cone  of  Ur-Bau .  42 

Brick  of  Gudea .  44 

Clay  Cone  of  Arad-Sin .  68 

Code  of  Hammurapi .  87 

Stone  Tablet  of  Nabu-apal-iddin .  193 

Colossal  Figure  from  Doorway  (Ashurnazirpal) .  198 

Stele  of  Ashurnazirpal  III .  204 

Monolith  of  Shalmaneser  III .  226 

Stela  of  Shalmaneser  III .  240 

Obelisk  of  Shalmaneser  III .  243 

Reliefs  from  Obelisk  of  Shalmaneser  III .  245 

Tablet  of  Tiglathpileser  IV .  267 

Relief  from  Kudurru  of  Merodach-baladan .  316 

Setting  Up  of  Bull  Colossus .  352 

Prism  of  Sennacherib .  352 

Siege  of  Lachish  (Sennacherib) .  370 

Sennacherib  at  Lachish .  374 

Stela  of  Esarhaddon .  399 

Ashurbanipal  Mounted .  428 

Assyrian  Soldiers .  432 

Horse’s  Head .  438 

Prism  of  Ashurbanipal .  444 

Dying  Lion  and  Lioness .  463 

Brick  Floor  of  Nebuchadrezzar .  537 

Cylinders  of  Nebuchadrezzar  and  Nabonidus .  551 

Cylinder  of  Cyrus .  573 


xix 


A  HISTORY 


OF 

BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


BOOK  II 

THE  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA 


CHAPTER  I 

EARLY  SUMERIAN  HISTORY 

The  study  of  the  origins  of  states  is  fraught 
with  no  less  difficulty  than  the  investigation  of 
the  origins  of  animate  nature.  The  great  wall 
before  every  investigator  of  the  beginnings  of 
things,  with  its  inscription,  “Thus  far  shalt  thou 
come  and  no  farther,”  stands  also  before  the 
student  of  the  origins  of  the  various  early  king¬ 
doms  of  Babylonia.  It  may  always  be  impossible 
to  achieve  any  picture  of  the  beginnings  of 
civilization  in  Babylonia  which  will  satisfy  the 
desire  for  a  clear  and  vivid  portrayal.  Whatever 
may  be  achieved  by  future  investigators,  it  is 
now  impossible  to  do  more  than  give  outlines  of 

events  in  the  dim  past  of  early  Babylonia. 

1 


2  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


If  we  call  up  before  us  the  land  of  Babylonia, 
and  transport  ourselves  backward  until  we  reach 
the  period  of  more  than  four  thousand  years 
before  Christ,  we  shall  be  able  to  discern  here 
and  there  signs  of  life,  society,  and  govern¬ 
ment  in  certain  cities.  Civilization  has  already 
reached  a  high  point,  the  arts  of  life  are  well 
advanced,  and  men  are  able  to  write  down  their 
thoughts  and  deeds  in  intelligible  language  and 
in  permanent  form.  All  these  presuppose  a  long 
period  of  development  running  back  through 
millenniums  of  unrecorded  time.  At  this  period 
there  are  no  great  kingdoms,  comprising  many 
cities,  with  their  laws  and  customs,  with  sub¬ 
ject  territory  and  tribute-paying  states.  Over 
the  entire  land  there  are  visible,  as  we  look  back 
upon  it,  only  cities  dissevered  in  government, 
and  perhaps  in  intercourse,  but  yet  the  promise 
of  kingdoms  still  unborn.  In  Babylonia  we 
know  of  the  existence  of  the  cities  Agade, 
Babylon,  Kutha,  Kish,  Umma,  Shirpurla  (after¬ 
ward  called  Lagash),  Guti,  and  yet  others  less 
famous.  In  each  of  these  cities  worship  is  paid 
to  some  local  god  who  is  considered  by  his 
faithful  followers  to  be  an  Ellil,  or  Lord,  the 
strongest  god,  whose  right  it  is  to  demand 
worship,  also,  from  dwellers  in  other  cities.*1 
This  belief  becomes  an  impulse  by  which  the 
inhabitants  of  a  city  are  driven  out  to  conquer 
other  cities  and  so  extend  the  dominion  of  their 


1  Winckler,  U ntersuchungen,  Leipzig,  1889,  p.  65. 


EARLY  SUMERIAN  HISTORY 


3 


god.  If  the  inhabitants  of  Babylon  could  con¬ 
quer  the  people  of  Kutha,  was  it  not  proof  that 
the  stronger  god  was  behind  their  armies,  and 
should  not  other  peoples  also  worship  him? 
But  there  were  other  motives  for  conquest. 
There  was  the  crying  need  for  bread — the  most 
pressing  need  of  all  the  ages.  It  was  natural 
that  they  who  had  the  poorer  parts  of  the 
country  should  seek  to  acquire  the  better  por¬ 
tions  either  to  dwell  in  or  to  exact  tribute  from. 
The  desire  for  power,  a  thoroughly  human  im¬ 
pulse,  was  also  joined  to  the  other  two  influences 
at  a  very  early  date.  The  ruler  in  Babylon 
must  needs  conquer  his  nearest  neighbor  that  he 
may  get  himself  power  over  men  and  a  name 
among  them.  Impelled  by  religion,  by  hunger, 
and  by  ambition,  the  peoples  of  Babylonia,  who 
have  dwelt  apart  in  separate  cities,  begin  to  add 
city  to  city,  concentrating  power  in  the  hands 
of  kings.  Herein  lies  the  origin  of  the  great 
empire  which  must  later  dominate  the  whole 
earth,  for  these  little  kingdoms  thus  formed 
later  unite  under  the  headship  of  one  kingdom 
and  the  empire  is  founded.  At  the  very  earliest 
period  whose  written  records  have  come  down 
to  us  the  land  which  we  now  call  Babylonia 
was  divided  into  two  great  parts,  of  which  the 
southern  was  later  called  Sumer  and  the  northern 
Accad,  the  dividing  line  between  them  being 
approximately  drawn  from  Samarra.  on  the 
Tigris  to  Hit  on  the  Euphrates.  North  of  this 


4  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


line  Akkad  is  somewhat  undulating  in  surface, 
and  rises  gradually  to  unite  with  the  steppe¬ 
like  lands  of  Mesopotamia  on  the  northwestern 
and  Assyria  on  the  northeastern  slopes.  South 
of  this  imaginary  line  lies  the  monotonously  level 
and  alluvial  land  of  Sumer. 

The  earliest  Sumerian  inhabitants  known  to 
us  called  the  northern  part  of  the  country, 
later  known  as  Accad,  by  the  strange  and  still 
unexplained  name  of  Ki-uri  or  Ki-urra.  In 
later  times  the  name  of  the  city  of  Agade  was 
extended  by  the  Semites  to  cover  the  whole  of 
the  northern  land,  and  was  Semitized  in  the 
form  Akkadu  or  Accad.  The  southern  part  of 
the  country,  in  which  the  Sumerians  were  first 
settled,  they  called  simply  Kanag ,  from  kan , 
abode,  and  ug ,  people,  that  is  simply  the  “abode 
of  people.”  This  word  Kanag  appears  also  in 
Sumerian  in  the  form  kalam ,  which  the  Assyrians 
translated  by  main,  land.  In  early  times  also 
the  southern  land  was  called  ki-en-gi,  which  is 
also  translated  by  the  Semites  by  the  word 
matu,  land.1  It  seems  quite  probab.le  that  the 
ideographs  ki-en-gi  were  really  read  Shumer,2 
(Sumer)  which  came  to  be  the  common  name 
of  the  land.  The  Sumerians  called  any  other 
inhabited  land  than  their  own  simply  kur, 
which  the  Semites  also  rendered  by  the  same 

1  Reisner,  Sumerisch-Babylonische  Hymnen ,  plate  130,  ff.  Compare 
Thureau-Dangin,  Die  Sumerischen  und  Akkadischen  Konigsinschri/ten, 
p.  152,  note  f.  and  King,  Burner  and  Akkad ,  i,  p.  14,  note  2. 

2  Hrozny,  Ninib  und  Sumer ,  Revue  Semitique,  July,  1908. 


EARLY  SUMERIAN  HISTORY 


5 


word,  matu  (land).  For  the  plural  they  simply 
wrote  the  word  twice,  kurkurra,  adding  to  it 
the  phonetic  complement  “ra.”  Their  kings  so 
long  as  they  ruled  only  over  their  own  country 
were  simply  styled  lugal  kanag  or  kalam-ma , 
“king  of  the  land,”  and  when  they  had  obtained 
dominion  over  any  other  country  were  then 
known  as  umun  kur-kurra ,  lord  of  lands. 

At  the  earliest  period  of  which  we  have 
knowledge  the  land  of  Sumer  was  inhabited  by 
the  round-headed,  clean-shaven  Sumerians,  and 
the  land  of  Accad  by  the  long-headed  and 
bearded  Semites.  Both  of  these  races  were 
dwelling  in  cities,  with  settled  agricultural  com¬ 
munities  about  them.  The  Sumerians  were 
writing  upon  carefully  prepared  clay  their  own 
language,  agglutinative  in  character,  and  in  a 
script  which  they  had  either  devised  or  at 
least  perfected  from  an  original  picture  writing. 
With  their  language  there  was  early  evident 
some  intermixture  with  or  borrowing  of  Semitic 
words,  and  there  was  presumably  also  a  Semitic 
element  in  the  population,  and  racial  inter¬ 
mixture  already  in  progress. 

At  this  same  period  Accad  was  inhabited  by 
Semites  who  had  taken  over  from  their  Su¬ 
merian  neighbors  the  cumbrous  and  awkward 
cuneiform  script,  and  were  using  it  to  write 
their  own  tongue — a  language  inflected  and  not 
agglutinative,  and  quite  unrelated  in  form  and 
vocabulary  to  the  Sumerian.  They  also  bor- 


6  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


rowed  Sumerian  words  and  adapted  them  to 
their  own  modes  of  speech.  So  has  it  happened 
often  again  in  the  history  of  men.  The  Turks 
and  the  Persians  have  both  taken  over  the 
Arabic  script,  the  former  into  an  agglutinative 
speech  of  the  Ural  Altaic  family,  the  Persian 
an  inflective  speech  of  the  Iranian  family,  and 
both  have  likewise  borrowed  words  from  the 
Semitic  Arabic. 

The  early  history  of  both  Semites  and  Su¬ 
merians  is  lost  in  a  dim  past  from  which  no  ray 
of  light  has  penetrated  to  our  time.  The 
Semites,  as  has  been  said  before,  probably  came 
originally  from  Arabia,  but  the  course  they 
followed  is  quite  unknown.  Waves  of  migra¬ 
tion  in  later  times  passed  out  of  Arabia  directly 
by  the  great  lines  of  the  wadies  into  southern 
Babylonia,  while  others  seem  to  have  moved  at 
first  out  of  Arabia  toward  the  northwest  into 
Canaan  and  then  northward  to  Aram,  and 
turning  then  eastward  entered  Babylonia  by 
the  Euphrates  from  the  northwest.  These 
courses  are  so  different  that  from  them  it  is 
hazardous  to  draw  any  single  analogy  concern¬ 
ing  the  earliest  period.  It  may,  however,  be 
permitted  to  suppose  that  Sumer  was  already 
inhabited  by  Semites  to  some  degree  when  the 
earliest  Sumerians  entered  it.  This  supposition 
would  explain  an  interesting  and  curious  phe¬ 
nomenon,  that  the  Sumerians  pictured  their 
gods  with  beards  like  the  Semites  and  not 


EARLY  SUMERIAN  HISTORY 


7 


smooth  shaven  like  themselves.  In  the  very 
earliest  portraits  of  Sumerian  gods  the  resem¬ 
blance  to  the  Semites  is  less  than  in  later  times 
when  Semitic  influence  was  greater,  but  it  is 
discernible,  and  suggests  the  hypothesis,  though 
the  evidence  be  slight,  that  Semites  perhaps 
only  as  pastoral  nomads  were  already  in  the 
land  when  the  warlike  and  conquering  Sumerian 
first  appeared. 

Whence  the  Sumerians  came  is  for  us  a 
matter  of  speculation  only.1  When  the  veil 
lifts  before  our  eyes  they  are  already  living  a 
civilized  life  in  cities,  and  already  skilled  in 
the  use  of  metals,  for  copper  spear  heads,  axes, 
daggers  and  fish  hooks  appear  in  the  very 
lowest  strata  at  Fara,  the  ancient  city  of  Shurip- 
pak.2  Even  so  early  as  this  the  life-giving 
waters  of  the  river  were  already  conducted  to 
the  cities  and  to  the  fields  in  artificially  con¬ 
structed  canals. 

The  earliest  records  which  have  been  pre¬ 
served  are  connected  with  Lagash,  Nippur  and 

1  They  have  been  supposed  to  come  (a)  from  the  south  by  the  waters 

of  the  Persian  gulf,  as  Oannes  is  represented  by  Berossos  as  appearing 
“in  the  first  year  of  Chaldea.”  ( Eusebii  Chronicorum  Liber  Prior 
editit,  Alfred  Schoene.  Berlin,  1875,  col.  14,  f.  Greek  text  and  trans¬ 
lation  in  Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels,  pp.  76-78.)  (b)  From  some 

mountain  home  by  way  of  the  hills  of  Elam.  For  this  it  is  alleged 
that  there  is  an  analogy  in  later  migrations  by  this  route,  as,  for  exam¬ 
ple,  the  Ilamites.  On  this  hypothesis  their  original  home  might  be 
found  even  so  far  afield  as  in  Turkestan.  (See  on  the  latter  point, 
Raphael  Pumpelly,  Explorations  in  Turkestan,  Carnegie  Institution 
Publications,  Nos.  26  (1905)  and  73  (1908).  (c)  From  India,  by  way 

of  Elam,  because  of  a  supposed  resemblance  to  the  Dravidian  race 
in  early  India.  (Hall,  The  Ancient  History  of  the  Near  East,  p.  173.) 

2  For  these  excavations  see  above,  I,  p.  319. 


8  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


Kish,  in  the  land  of  Sumer,  and  all  these,  with¬ 
out  a  single  exception,  are  written  in  the  Sumerian 
tongue.  They  are  brief  lines  of  dedication 
accompanying  some  votive  offering  to  a  god, 
or  notices  of  some  temple  erection  or  canal 
excavation.  From  them  it  is  impossible  to 
construct  any  real  history,  for  we  do  not  surely 
know  the  order  in  which  the  earliest  of  them 
reigned,  nor  do  we  know  their  relations  one 
with  the  other,  save  for  now  and  again  some 
vague  hint. 

From  the  ruins  of  Nippur,  out  of  a  great 
depth  beneath  the  pavements  of  very  early 
kings  there  have  come  three  fragments  of  a 
dark  brown  sandstone  vase,  upon  which  in 
extremely  archaic  cuneiform  characters  these 
words  are  written  in  pure  Sumerian:  “To 
Zamama,  Utug,  patesi  of  Kish,  .  .  .  [son  of] 
Bazuzu,  conqueror  of  Khamazi  has  brought 
[this]  as  a  present.”  These  are  probably  the 
first  syllables  of  recorded  time  from  the  Su¬ 
merian  world,  and  their  testimony  is  first  war 
and  then  of  religion.  Utug,  ruler  in  the  city 
kingdom  of  Kish,  has  conquered  the  land  of 
Khamazi,  and  would  give  gratitude  to  his 
local  god  Zamama.  He  prepares  a  vase,  and 
carries  it  to  the  city  of  Nippur,  there  to  be 
set  up  in  the  shrine  of  the  greater  god  Ellil. 
This  is  all  that  we  know.  We  might  perhaps 
go  on  to  conjecture  that  even  in  this  early  day 
Nippur  had  a  religious  position  recognized  by 


EARLY  SUMERIAN  HISTORY 


9 


other  cities  as  supreme,  while  each  of  the  others 
enjoyed  political  autonomy,  and  were  each  seek¬ 
ing  by  conquest  to  extend  its  borders,  and  lay 
the  foundations  of  empire.  These  conjectures 
will  find  some  confirmation  in  the  stories  that 
follow. 

After  Utug  there  followed  as  ruler  of  Kish, 
though  we  do  not  know  how  great  was  the 
interval,  Mesilim,  who  does  not  refrain  from  the 
greater  title  of  king,  and  has  left  a  most  inter¬ 
esting  little  inscription  upon  a  richly  decorated 
mace  head,1  recording  his  building  of  a  temple 
in  the  city  of  Lagash  when  Lugal-shag-engur 
was  patesi  of  Lagash.  Here  is  the  reality  and 
not  merely  the  semblance  of  empire.  Mesilim 
is  king  in  Kish,  but  he  is  suzerain  over  Lagash, 
and  so  great  and  significant  is  his  reign  that 
long  after  a  Patesi  of  Lagash  by  name  En- 
temena,2  refers  to  him  by  name  and  style  as 
King  of  Kish,  when  he  recounts  the  history  of 
boundary  disputes  between  Lagash  and  Umma. 
Mesilim  was  ruling  as  the  representative  of  the 
goddess  Kadi,  as  the  later  patesi  makes  plain, 
but  Ellil  was  still  the  chief  god,  and  it  was  he 
who  orders  Kadi  to  execute  his  will  through 
Mesilim,  her  earthly  representative. 

After  Mesilim  there  came  two  kings  of  Kish 

1  E.  de  Sarzec  et  L.  Heuzey,  Decouvertes  en  Chaldee,  partie  6pigraphique, 
xxxv,  Thureau-Dangin,  Die  Sumerischen  und  Akkadischen  Koniysin- 
schriften,  pp.  160,  161. 

2  Cone  of  Entemena,  lines  8,  ff.  Decouvertes,  6pig.,  xlvii.  Thureau- 
Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  36,  37. 


10  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


whose  names  are  Lugal-tarsi,  and  Urzage,  of 
whom  the  former  has  bequeathed  to  posterity 
only  a  little  tablet  of  lapis  lazuli,1  with  a 
simple  record  of  his  building  a  piece  of  wall  to 
the  honor  of  Aru  and  Innina,  while  the  latter 
dedicates  his  labors  to  Enlil  and  Ninlil,  and  so 
acknowledges  once  more  the  Religious  dominance 
of  Nippur.  Both  these  kings  wrote  in  Su¬ 
merian.  After  them  Kish  vanishes  for  a  time 
from  our  sight  and  the  scene  of  human  action 
and  progress  is  transferred  to  Lagash. 

After  the  days  of  Lugal-shag-engur  the  patesis 
or  kings  of  Lagash  are  little  known  to  us  until 
the  great  figure  of  Ur-Nina  appears,  who 
founded  a  dynasty  destined  to  endure  through 
six  reigns.  From  Ur-Nina  we  have  inherited 
many  placques  with  figures  of  the  king  and  his 
family,  rude  in  draughtsmanship,  but  executed 
upon  diorite  and  onyx  as  well  as  upon  clay,  and 
bearing  witness  to  progress  in  the  arts.  Ur-Nina 
has  left  inscriptions  also,  recounting  his  building 
of  temples  to  the  gods  Ningirsu  and  Nina  and 
others,  for  which  he  brought  wood  from  the 
mountains,  and  a  great  storehouse,  probably 
for  grain,  is  still  to  be  seen  in  the  ruins  of  his 
city.2  There  is  not  a  suggestion  in  any  of  his 
texts3  that  he  carried  on  war  against  his  neigh¬ 
bors,  but  we  may  reasonably  infer  from  his 

1  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  160,  161. 

*  See  above,  I,  p.  297. 

*  All  his  brief  inscriptions  are  assembled  in  transliteration  and  trans¬ 
lation  in  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  2-9. 


■ 


t 


4 


' 


■ 


■ 


,  ■ 


V 


II — 1 1 


■ 

* 

d;  was  •  still,  threatened 

war.  Tie  most  beneficent  of  his  works  was  se 

Nina,  tad  imcsier  to  bob'.  of  Nippur,  v,ro  still 
remained  the  chief  god  of  all  the  a. 

\  ,‘iiv '  L;  h  'A 

noitDiri&SI)  ed)  iofh:;  betofpo  ,wiu$lu  io  rshto 


l  m'te 

oratea  its  greatest  deeds  upon 

-.■I}. ier; u;  r  is; ic  fo?-e«  4  h:  A  t  ti  ■ 

tii  ,  I'jel:  Buie  uf  1  V  ’•  ■  J  <>v  ■  tOl  t  : 

1 

r>  v  'I  l:;}  \ .  *  •/  ;  '  '  '  ;  ■ 

\ o  .  •  , .  Vi  Ls gash  and  ‘‘Toiua,  hd  *d 
ii^vad  •  . .  o  v  valley  olong  '  to  oe  h  r  r 

dangerous  an  invasion  of  peace,  hih  soujjfci* 

' 

hv  v  <o  uppboatiun  t  ■*  gou  Kinpir  u 

Tn-ivw  IWuBOurr  first  puVJished  in  dc  S;ir^o<-  &  Hi  u  oy,  a»»  >u  i* 

I:  Mu  r  u  d  ud  tr  .J.  u  i  t  Then  ,u- Danilin,  op. 


Portion  of  a  Sumerian  Victory  Stela,  the  so-called 
Stele  of  the  Vultures,  erected  after  the  destruction 
of  the  city  of  Urnma  by  Eannatum,  patesi  of  Lagash. 
The  patesi  is  represented  at  the  head  of  his  troops, 
attired  in  rich  robes,  and  carries  a  boomerang  in  his 
right  hand.  Behind  him  are  his  troops,  carrying 
spears,  and  advancing  over  the  bodies  of  their 
enemies. 

[From  E.  de  Sarzec,  Decouvertes  en  Chaldee ,  Paris, 
1884,  ff.] 


EARLY  SUMERIAN  HISTORY  11 

building  of  city  walls  that  he  had  reason  to 
fear  attacks  from  others,  and  that  whatever 
peace  he  enjoyed,  while  civilization  went  for¬ 
ward,  was  still  threatened  by  the  dangers  of 
war.  The  most  beneficent  of  his  works  was  the 
digging  of  canals,  one  of  which  he  dedicated  to 
Nina,  and  another  to  Enlil  of  Nippur,  who  still 
remained  the  chief  god  of  all  the  region. 

Akurgal,  son  of  Ur-Nina,  came  next  to  rule 
over  Lagash,  and  fell  on  troublous  times,  for 
war  was  waged  upon  Umma  perhaps  arising 
over  the  boundary  which  had  already  been  the 
occasion  of  dispute  in  the  days  of  Mesilim. 
There  are,  as  yet,  no  inscriptions  of  Akurgal,  and 
we  know  of  this  struggle  only  through  the  men¬ 
tion  of  his  son  Eannatum,  who  succeeded  him. 

Eannatum  had  a  glorious  reign,  and  has  com¬ 
memorated  its  greatest  deeds  upon  a  stele  of 
wonderful  artistic  force  and  skilful  execution, 
the  famous  Stele  of  the  Vultures.1  From  this 
and  the  brief  notices  in  the  inscriptions  of  the 
next  king  we  learn  that  Ush,  patesi  of  Umma, 
had  removed  the  boundary  stone  set  up  by 
Mesilim  between  Lagash  and  Umma,  and  had 
invaded  the  rich  valley  belonging  to  the  former 
and  “devoured”  it.  Eannatum  must  meet  so 
dangerous  an  invasion  of  peace,  and  sought 
counsel  first  of  his  god.  As  he  lay  prostrate  on 
his  face  in  supplication,  the  god  Ningirsu  ap- 

1  Louvre  Museum,  first  published  in  de  Sarzec  &  Heuzey,  Decouvertes, 
plates  3,  3  bis,  4,  4  bis  and  4  ter,  and  epigraphie  xxxviii.  The  text 
transliterated  and  translated  by  Thoreau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  10-21. 


12  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


peared  to  him  in  a  dream,  and  promised  that 
if  he  went  out  against  Umma  the  god  Babbar 
should  be  on  his  right  hand,  and  victory  accom¬ 
pany  his  return.  Thus  encouraged  he  gathered 
his  soldiers  armed  with  battle  axes  and  long 
spears,  protend  oy  wooden  bucklers,  and 
ready  for  hand-to-hand  conflict.  It  was  a 
veritable  shock  of  arms  and  armor,  and 
Eannatum  boasts  tha^^e  left  three  thousand 
six  hundred  of  his  enemy  dead  upon  the  field, 
while  his  pictured  stel^ljkortrays  the  vultures 
carrying  off  their  heads||from  dismembered 
bodies.  Thus  overwhelm#!?  the  men  of  Umma 
gave  way,  and  their-  city  was  given  over  to 
Eannatum,  who  swept W like  “a  terrible  storm.” 
Then  he  cast  over  wp  people  the  great  nets 
of  Ellil  and  Ninkharslg  and  gave  himself  over 
to  boasting,  while  he  made  sacrifices  to  the  gods 
who  had  given  him  the  victory..  Where  once 
had  stood  the  boundary  stone  he  now  dug  a 
great  ditch  to  the  water  level,  and  was  sure 
that  to  far  distant  days  the  people  of  Umma 
should  not  cross  it,  or  bear  away  again  the 
restored  boundary  stone. 

To  this  campaign  Eannatum  has  given  most 
honor,  but  he  had  other  victories  to  boast. 
He  laid  low  the  king  of  Kish,  and  then  received 
at  the  hands  of  his  god  besides  the  patesitum 
of  Lagash,  the  kingdom  of  Kish,1  and  so  claims 

1  Foundation  Stone  A,  col.  vi,  line  1.  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit., 
pp.  22,  23‘. 


EARLY  SUMERIAN  HISTORY 


13 


suzerainty  over  the  city  which  had  one  time 
dominated  Sumer.  Upon  this  he  adds  the 
greater  boasts:  “By  Eannatum  was  Elam’s  head 
broken,  Elam  was  driven  back  into  his  land.” 

No  such  wars  and  victors  as  these  had  been 
known  before  in  Sumer’s  lustor^  and  the  city 
of  Lagash  had  now  by  the  sword  been  made 
the  greatest  political  power  in  the  land.  Civil¬ 
ization  had  apparently!  not  gone  forward  so 
rapidly  as  dominion  bv}  theLsword,  but  it  would 
not  be  just  to  forget  JHBBteannatum  has  also 
to  tell  of  the  building  of  tlBples,  the  digging  of 
canals,  and  the  cons-Hptionfef  a  great  reservoir 
holding  3,600  measur(5Jofi%ater  to  supply  the 
land  in  time  of  drougByand  that  even  the 
monument  which  tells  oBBod  and  the  heaping 
of  mounds  over  the  burieBffain  is  itself  a  witness 
to  artistic  achievement  with  the  chisel,  beyond 
the  cruder  works  of  Ur-Nina. 

The  great  king  was  succeeded  by  his  brother 
Enannatum  I,  in  whose  reign  Urlumma,  now 
patesi  of  Umma,  felt  strong  enough  to  imitate 
Ush  in  the  days  of  the  great  Eannatum,  and 
crossing  the  boundary  broke  in  pieces  the 
boundary  stones,  and  was  with  difficulty  re¬ 
strained  from  overcoming  Lagash  itself.  The 
allusions  made  to  this  campaign  by  the  next 
ruler  of  Lagash  are  boastful  enough,  but  the 
results  show  plainly  that  Enannatum  had  rather 
defended  his  own  land  than  won  such  victories 
as  his  brother. 


14  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


Entemena,  son  of  Enannatum  I,  was  his 
successor,  and  his  reign  of  twenty-nine  years 
was  worthy  of  comparison  with  that  of  Ur-Nina 
for  advance  in  civilization,  and  with  EannatunTs 
as  to  success  in  the  field.  Urlumma  was  still 
ruling  in  UmHaa,  and  judged  that  a  change  of 
patesis  in  Lagash  might  afford  him  an  oppor¬ 
tunity  for  the  extension  of  territory.  The 
neighboring  city  of  Karkar  became  an  ally,  and 
the  combined  forces  entered  the  same  district 
in  Lagash  which  had  witnessed  the  overthrow 
of  Ush,  and  was  now  to  become  the  scene  of 
Umma’s  downfall.  B^temena  met  his  adver¬ 
saries  and  routed  them,  pursuing  Urlumma  to 
his  own  city  where  he  was  taken  and  slain.  The 
victory  was  complet^indeed,  and  we  gain  some 
impression  of  the  smallness  of  the  forces  en¬ 
gaged  when  we  read  that  Urlumma  left  but 
sixty  dead  on  the  field,  whose  bones  Entemena 
left  there  to  bleach  in  the  sun,  after  the  vultures 
had  stripped  them,  while  over  his  own  dead  he 
raised  five  burial  mounds.1  All  danger  of 
further  disturbance  of  the  peace  was  now  ended. 
Karkar  was  annexed  to  Lagash,  and  the  inde¬ 
pendence  of  Uinma  was  forfeited.  Entemena 
brought  Hi,  a  faithful  retainer,  from  service  else¬ 
where  and  set  him  over  Umma,  with  the  title  of 
patesi,  to  rule  it  under  his  own  over-lordship. 

The  old  ditches  that  marked  the  ancient 

1  The  Ball  of  Entemena,  col.  iii,  lines  19-27,  Thureau-Dangin, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  38,  39. 


# 


II — 13 


EARLY  SUMERIAN  HISTORY  i: 

boundaries  were  nov  re-dUg,  with  forced  labor 
irom  Umma;  the  canals  connecting  the  Tigris 
and  Euphrates  were  re-opened,  and  walled  with 
brick  and  stone;  to 

glorious  abiding  ;T>ce  me  in  Lagash;  vote  e 
offerings  were  curried  to  the  great  god  T Mil 
in  Nippur;  and  h  icr  tena  justly  styled  himself 
Great  /  had  indeed  formed 

a  small  empire  in  dabylonia,  for  his  power  was 

hi  it  Ip  to  e>em  -lo'did 

iii.  .ao/b.ui  itooidgiq  bac  qfghl  yoribui 

ipqypq  £  dlcouod  Ju\q<j  M dw.abi  Ig  /loiqiiugh 


?u  a  !  -  a-  v  vm-  •  nu<  •,aq  .  ,  . 

.vnasroR  boripq  a  mop  jib  a  nj  mia'i9vix* 

has,  however,  left  u>s  tne  most  beautiful  spec- 

had  then  produced.  11  killful  arti  ieei  laid 
fashioned  a  magnificent  silver  vase,  twenty- 

base  seven  inches  in  heigh  ,  which  is'  dself 
supported  by  fpur  claw  feet,  -  he  outline  of 
t)  *  v  ,  of  almost  classic  chasteness  and 

i.i-v .  >  •  the  surface  is  engraved  with  the 

arms  oi  f  .mash  a  lion-headed  eagle  with  out¬ 
stretched  •  irms;  aid  talon  urd  into  the  m  - 
of  two  lion  wh;  above  his  a  line  c-i  hi  bone 

sen: ed  a»s  lying  on  th  >  meadow.  f  1  a r  witu  In 
right  forefoot  extended  as  though  the  animal 
\  ■  r<  maVng  the  r,  4  move  to  r  An  v  a.  .  . 


Silver  vase  of  Entemena,  patesi  of  Lagash.  It  is 
twenty-eight  inches  high,  and  eighteen  inches  in 
diameter  at  the  widest  point.  Beneath  is  a  copper 
base,  seven  inches  in  height,  supported  by  four  feet 
with  lion-like  paws.  A  superb  specimen  of  the 
silversmith’s  art  from  a  period  so  early. 

[Museum  of  the  Louvre,  Paris.] 


EARLY  SUMERIAN  HISTORY 


15 


boundaries  were  now  re-dug,  with  forced  labor 
from  Umma;  the  canals  connecting  the  Tigris 
and  Euphrates  were  re-opened,  and  walled  with 
brick  and  stone;  to  the  god  Ningirsu  a  more 
glorious  abiding  place  arose  in  Lagash;  votive 
offerings  were  carried  to  the  great  god  Ellil 
in  Nippur;  and  Entemena  justly  styled  himself 
Great  Patesi  of  Lagash.  He  had  indeed  formed 
a  small  empire  in  Babylonia,  for  his  power  was 
felt  in  Accad  as  well  as  in  Sumer. 

With  Entemena  civilization  also  found  patron¬ 
age,  and  a  revival  of  the  artistic  handicrafts  is 
most  clearly  seen.  Bronze  was  not  yet  in  use, 
copper  implements  only  having  been  recovered 
in  all  these  early  Sumerian  cities.  Entemena 
has,  however,  left  us  the  most  beautiful  spec¬ 
imen  of  silver  workmanship  which  the  world 
had  then  produced.  His  skillful  artificers  had 
fashioned  a  magnificent  silver  vase,  twenty- 
eight  inches  in  height,  mounted  upon  a  copper 
base  seven  inches  in  height,  which  is  itself 
supported  by  four  claw  feet.  The  outline  of 
the  vase  is  of  almost  classic  chasteness  and 
beauty,  and  the  surface  is  engraved  with  the 
arms  of  Lagash,  a  lion-headed  eagle  with  out¬ 
stretched  wings,  and  talons  sunk  into  the  backs 
of  two  lions,  while  above  this  a  line  of  fishbone 
ornament  separates  a  row  of  heifers,  each  repre¬ 
sented  as  lying  on  the  meadow,  but  with  the 
right  forefoot  extended  as  though  the  animal 
were  making  the  first  move  to  rise.  An  age  and 


16  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


a  land  which  could  produce  such  craftsmanship 
had  made  their  full  contribution  to  the  advance¬ 
ment  of  the  ages  to  come. 

With  Entemena  the  dynasty  had  exhausted 
its  powers,  and,  as  so  often  happens  in  history, 
an  age  of  mediocrity  and  of  decay  followed 
swiftly.  Four  patesis,  each  with  a  short  and 
undistinguished  reign,  followed  the  great  patesi, 
and  with  them  the  dynasty  which  Ur-Nina 
had  founded  ceased. 

The  last  of  these  latter  patesis,  Lugal-anda 
by  name,  disappears  in  an  age  in  which  local 
corruptions  had  debauched  the  state.  The 
poor  had  been  plundered  by  local  officials, 
who  had  battened  on  the  tributes  and  taxes, 
and  the  dynasty  fell,  in  its  failure  to  govern 
what  Ur-Nina  and  Entemena  had  won;  demon¬ 
strating  thus  early  in  Babylonia  that  wise, 
prudent  and  efficient  rule  is  much  more  difficult 
of  achievement  than  success  in  war. 

Upon  the  ruins  of  the  dynasty  there  arose 
an  usurper,  without  father  and  without  mother, 
but  claiming  that  the  god  Ningirsu  had  ap¬ 
pointed  him  to  the  rule  over  Lagash,  with  the 
title  not  of  patesi,  but  of  king,  and  wearing  the 
name  Urukagina.  But  though  he  claims  his 
right  to  rule  as  of  divine  appointment  he  gives 
a  long  and  vivid  account  of  the  oppressions 
from  which  he  rescued  the  people,  and  it  is 
as  a  reformer  of  civic  abuses  that  he  makes 
his  boast.  He  portrays  most  vividly  the  state 


EARLY  SUMERIAN  HISTORY 


17 


of  the  country  when  he  arose  to  govern  it, 
when  every  part  of  the  ruling  classes  preyed 
upon  the  poor,  and  the  whole  country,  even 
to  the  sea,  was  covered  with  inspectors,  who 
lived  upon  the  populace  and  sucked  its  life 
blood  like  leeches.  These  also  Urukagina  re¬ 
moved  from  the  boatmen,  the  fishermen,  the 
shepherds  whom  they  had  driven  to  madness. 
The  power  which  the  patesis  had  come  more 
and  more  to  exercise  in  their  own  name,  for¬ 
getting  the  principles  of  the  theocracy,  save 
for  a  certain  lip-service,  he  gave  back  to  the 
gods,  being  careful,  however,  to  reduce  the 
priestly  exactions,  and  diminish  their  haughty 
and  pretentious  claims.  Before  his  reforms  the 
officiating  priest  at  every  ordinary  burial  of 
the  dead  had  demanded  “seven  urns  of  strong 
drink,  four  hundred  and  twenty  loaves  of 
bread,  one  hundred  and  twenty  measures  of 
grain,  a  garment,  a  kid,  a  bed  and  a  seat,”1 
and  his  helper  sixty  measures  of  grain.  The 
priest  was  henceforth  required  to  claim  but 
“three  urns  of  strong  drink,  eighty  loaves  of 
bread,  a  bed  and  a  kid,”2  while  the  assistant 
received  but  thirty  measures  of  grain.  Beyond 
such  claims  as  these,  which  were  doubtless 
originally  defended  as  a  sort  of  tithe  for  the 
support  of  an  organized  priesthood,  the  priests 


1  Urukagina,  Ball  Inscriptions  B.  &  C.,  col.  vi,  lines  4-14.  Thureau- 
Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  48,  49. 

2  Ibid.,  col.  ix,  lines  27-32. 


18  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


themselves  had  become  a  menace  to  the  com¬ 
munity’s  orderly  life,  for  the  king  declares  that 
they  were  wont  to  enter  a  man’s  garden  and 
strip  the  fruit  from  the  trees. 

The  system  of  spoliation  had  risen  above  the 
priesthood  to  the  ministers  of  the  kingdom  and 
even  to  the  patesi  himself,  for  Urukagina  de¬ 
clares  that  if  a  man  divorced  his  wife  the 
patesi  demanded  five  shekels,  and  his  minister 
of  state  one  shekel,  while  even  the  diviner 
could  claim  yet  another.  These  charges  were 
abolished  altogether,  though  the  king  enforced 
rigidly  the  old  punishments  for  adultery,  and 
cast  the  woman  who  had  offended  into  the  water. 

Besides  these  administrative  reforms  the  ener¬ 
gies  of  the  new  king  were  devoted  to  the  build¬ 
ing  of  temples,  and  to  the  extension  of  canal 
facilities  for  water  supply.  He  seems  never  to 
have  attempted  any  military  campaigns,  but 
suffered  his  army  to  fall  into  decay,  and  so 
prepared  unconsciously  for  the  end  of  the 
state’s  independence.  By  the  sword  had  been 
founded  the  empire  over  which  he  now  ruled, 
and  it  was  scarcely  probable  that  it  should 
survive  when  the  sword’s  edge  was  dulled. 
The  extent  of  the  territory  over  which  he  ruled 
in  fact,  or  by  suzerainty,  is  unknown.  He 
seems  to  have  exercised  some  sort  of  vague 
dominance  as  far  as  Erech,1  but  the  core  of 

1  Such  would  appear  to  be  the  inference  from  the  little  olive-shaped 
text.  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  “d,”  pp.  44,  45. 


EARLY  SUMERIAN  HISTORY 


19 


his  city  kingdom  was  Lagash  and  Umma.  Iiis 
claims  of  dominion  did  not  embrace  the  north, 
for,  even  while  he  and  his  predecessors  held 
sway  in  Lagash,  an  independent  dynasty  of 
six  kings  ruled  for  ninety-nine  years  in  Opis, 
while  eight  others  exercised  dominion  in  Kish. 
The  names  only  of  these  rulers  have  been  pre¬ 
served,  but  of  themselves  we  know  nothing.1 

The  end  of  Lagash  was  preparing  even  while 
Urukagina  pursued  his  beneficent  plans  of  social 
welfare,  and  the  king  lived  to  see  and  even  to 
record  the  beginnings  of  his  sore  humiliation. 
It  w  as  Umma  which  took  vengeance.  In  her 
had  arisen  a  patesi  fitted  for  conquest  beyond 
all  his  predecessors.  Urukagina  gives  a  list  of 
the  depredations  of  the  “people  of  Umma”  who 
burned  buildings  in  Lagash,  “plundered  silver 
and  precious  stones,  and  poured  out  blood.” 
One  building  after  another  he  names  in  this 
gloomy  text2  of  many  forebodings,  and  at  its 
very  end  summarizes  the  whole  sad  case  in 
words  of  solemn  objurgation:  “The  people  of 
Umma,  in  that  they  have  so  desolated  Lagash, 
have  committed  sin  against  Ningirsu.  The 
power  which  has  come  to  them  shall  be  taken 
from  them.  There  is  no  sin  on  the  side  of 
Urukagina,  king  of  Girsu  [the  temple  and  a 
city  ward  in  Lagash],  but  Nisaba,  goddess  of 
Lugal-zaggisi,  shall  bear  this  sin  on  her  head.” 


1  See  the  Chronological  Tables. 

2  Tablet,  Thureau-Dangin,  up.  cit.,  “k,”  pp.  50-59. 


20  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


He  speaks  as  Nabonidus,  many  centuries  later, 
might  have  done.  He  is  sure  that  the  god 
Ningirsu  would  some  day  restore  the  temples 
that  now  lay  silent,  and  so  indeed  they  were 
once  more  to  see  glory  without  and  honor 
within,  but  political  power  had  departed  from 
Lagash  forever.  It  seems  a  sore  pity  that  the 
people  whom  he  had  delivered  from  oppressions 
within  their  own  state,  must  now  fall  under 
oppressions  from  without.  He  had  indeed  not 
abolished  slavery,  or  the  corvee ,  but  he  had 
minimized  their  evils,  and  a  conqueror  who 
had  set  out  upon  empire  building  was  little 
likely  to  have  a  tender  heart  for  the  common 
folk  who  must  fill  his  armies  or  pile  up  the 
bricks  for  his  new  structures. 

Lugal-zaggisi  began  his  career  as  the  suc¬ 
cessor  of  Ukush,  patesi  of  Umma,  in  the  days  of 
its  subordination  to  Lagash,  and  with  the  same 
title  he  set  out  to  destroy  Lagash.  At  the  very 
summit  of  his  power  he  dedicated  in  the  great 
temple  of  Ellil  at  Nippur  a  series  of  vases 
fashioned  deftly  of  white  calcite  stalagmite, 
bearing  each  the  same  inscription.  Time  has 
broken  the  vases  into  small  pieces,  but  epigraphic 
skill  has  restored  for  the  most  part  the  inscrip¬ 
tion  upon  them.1  When  this  inscription  was 
written  he  no  longer  wore  the  humbler  title  of 
patesi,  but  boldly  bore  the  style  of  king;  no 

1  Hilprecht,  Old  Babylonian  Inscriptions,  i,  part  2,  plate  38,  text  87, 
partly  translated  in  ii,  pp.  52,  IT.  Complete  transliteration  and  trans¬ 
lation,  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  152-157 


EARLY  SUMERIAN  HISTORY 


21 


longer  was  Umma  his  chief  city,  for  he  had 
made  Erech  the  capital  of  Sumer,  now  prac¬ 
tically  all  united  under  his  dominance.  He 
writes  in  the  old  Sumerian  tongue,  and  not 
even  the  awkward  combinations  of  its  syllables, 
strung  one  upon  another,  are  able  to  cover 
the  enthusiasm  which  rises  and  overflows  in 
this  outburst  of  gratitude  to  the  gods  of  Sumer. 
It  was  these  gods  who  had  called  him  to  rule 
over  Umma  and  Lagash  and  had  then  appointed 
to  him  a  still  greater  dominion.  His  words 
glow  with  feeling  as  he  says:  “When  En-lil 
(Ellil)  king  of  the  lands,  invested  Lugal-zaggisi 
with  the  kingdom  of  the  world,  when  he  led 
him  rightly  before  the  land,  when  he  cast  the 
lands  beneath  his  power,  and  he  had  conquered 
from  the  rising  to  the  setting  of  the  sun,  then 
he  straightened  his  path  from  the  lower  sea 
across  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates  to  the  upper 
sea;  from  the  rising  to  the  setting  sun  Ellil  hath 
given  him  dominion.”1 

Lugal-zaggisi  had  made  a  small  empire  almost 
at  one  stroke,  for  he  has  here  claimed  that  his 
power  extended  from  the  Persian  Gulf  to  the 
Mediterranean.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that 
he  exercised  rule  over  a  territory  so  vast,  and 
nothing  in  the  rest  of  his  text  supports  the 
idea.  He  had  probably  made  raids  beyond 
Sumer  and  Accad,  and  it  is  quite  possible 
that  he  may  have  made  raids  even  as  far  as 


1  Lugal-zaggisi,  col.  1,  lines  3G-col.  2,  lines  16. 


22  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

the  great  sea.  His  greatest  claim  to  honor 
from  posterity  was  in  these  words:  “He  made 
the  land  to  dwell  in  security,  and  the  land 
he  watered  with  waters  of  joy.”  His  empire 
would  crumble  away  shortly,  but  the  blessings 
of  peace  for  a  season  at  least,  and  the  waters 
flowing  for  men  and  fields  meant  much  to  the 
long  suffering  hearts  and  bodies  of  men. 

The  Chronicle  gives  no  other  name  than 
Lugal-zaggisi  to  the  dynasty  of  Ur  in  this 
time,  and  assigns  twenty-five  years  to  his  reign, 
though,  as  we  have  seen,  the  king  himself  set 
most  store  by  Erech  and  counted  it  apparently 
the  chief  city  of  his  kingdom.  After  him  in 
Erech  there  ruled  Kigub-nidudu,  who  also  dedi¬ 
cated  a  vase  in  Nippur  to  Ellil,  and  on  it  says 
he  made  Ur  a  kingdom,1  as  though  he  seemed 
to  set  some  store  by  his  control  there,  though 
Erech  is  mentioned  first  and  must  still  have 
been  the  chief  city  of  his  rule.  After  him  came 
Lugal-kisalsi,  who  is  associated  on  the  same 
text  with  Lugal-kigubnidudu,  and  was  probably 
his  son. 

Shortly  after  these  kings  En-shag-kush-ana 
dedicated  the  spoils  of  victory  over  the  city 
of  Kish  in  the  city  of  Nippur  to  Ellil.  He 
gives  as  his  title  only  the  words:  “lord  of  Sumer, 
king  of  the  land,”  and  adds  no  city  name  to 
define  more  narrowly  the  seat  of  his  dominion. 

1  Hilprecht,  Old  Babylonian  Inscriptions,  i,  part  ii,  No.  8G.  Thureau- 
Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  156,  157. 


EARLY  SUMERIAN  HISTORY  23 

It  would  seem  a  fair  inference  that  Sumer  had 
now  fully  united  in  defense  of  its  very  existence 
as  an  independent  entity  against  the  threatened 
encroachments  of  Kish,  and  that  he  had  met 
with  success  for  the  present,  but  only  for  the 
present.  Kish  and  Opis  must  now  both  be 
practically  Semitised,  and  the  Semitic  rulers  in 
them  were  pressing  southward  to  possess  the 
lands  of  the  Sumerians.  They  coveted  the  rich 
alluvial  soil  on  which  the  older  race  was  settled, 
and  the  goodly  cities  which  dotted  it  here  and 
there.  Even  at  this  early  time  the  Sumerian 
vitality  was  dying  out,  and  the  day  was  threat¬ 
ening  when  a  new  and  virile  people  would  drive 
them  into  subjection,  possess  their  territory  and 
carry  to  completion  the  assimilation  of  their 
culture  and  the  peaceful  absorption  of  their 
blood.  The  day  had  gone  by  forever  when  a 
Sumerian  conqueror  could  ravage  Kish  and 
Opis  and  set  up  their  spoil  in  Nippur’s  proud 
shrine. 

Sumerian  political  supremacy  had  almost 
ended,  but  Sumerian  civilization  was  only  be¬ 
ginning  to  secure  dominion.  As  has  often  hap¬ 
pened  since  in  the  world,  its  influence  was  to 
be  secured  through  others.  In  the  hour  of 
their  humiliation  as  a  free  and  dominant  people 
the  Sumerians  should  see  the  elements  of  their 
inner  life  taken  over  by  the  Semites  to  be  worked 
over  into  new  and  better  forms,  and  then  in 
turn  to  be  given  to  yet  another  race  whose 


24  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

name  was  not  yet  of  sufficient  importance  to 
be  known  to  either. 

We  may  now  turn  to  see  the  steady  progress 
of  the  Semitic  kingdom  of  Accad  to  a  position 
of  supremacy  over  Sumer. 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  SARGON  I 

The  greatest  figure  of  the  Tigris  Euphrates 
valley,  in  the  early  days,  is  the  figure  of  Sargon 
king  of  Agade,  that  is,  king  of  Accad,  leader 
of  the  Semitic  Babylonians  who  called  them¬ 
selves  Accadians.  All  they  who  ruled  before 
him  were  kings  of  the  prosaic  life  of  mortal 
men;  he  alone  became  a  figure  of  romance,  a 
hero  of  legend.  Their  names  were  forgotten, 
to  be  recovered  in  our  own  day  from  the  rub¬ 
bish  heaps  of  lonely  steppes  and  deserts;  his 
survived  the  din  of  many  struggles  to  ring  out 
clear  and  strong  in  the  Assyrian  period,  and  to 
resound  again  in  the  Neo-Babylonian  or  Chal¬ 
dean  age.  It  is  only  about  the  supreme  figures 
that  myth  and  legend  cluster,  and  these  are  not 
evidence  that  the  figure  is  unreal,  as  men  have 
sometimes  vainly  thought,  but  rather  are  wit¬ 
ness  to  its  greatness. 

To  our  sight  Sargon  comes  suddenly  into 
view,  and  almost  immediately  we  see  his  rise 
to  power  unknown  before.  But  for  all  the 
analogies  of  history  in  later  times  we  might 
suppose  that  his  kingdom  was  of  sudden  creation. 
But  there  are  as  few  cataclysmic  changes  in 

25 


26  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

human  history  as  in  geological,  and  we  may 
with  much  confidence  suppose  that  the  Semites 
had  long  been  in  occupation  of  Accad  and 
that  other  kings  had  prepared  the  way  for  him. 
His  capital  city  of  Agade  has  not  yet  known 
the  explorer’s  spade,  and  with  some  confidence 
we  may  hope  that  later  days  may  know  more 
of  the  origins  of  his  new  power.  For  the  present 
we  are  able  only  to  view  its  greatest  figure 
drawn  for  us  chiefly  by  later  hands,  but  sup¬ 
ported  in  its  broader  outlines  by  contemporary 
documents. 

Sargon  first  became  known  in  texts  of  astro¬ 
logical,  religious,  and  legendary  character  written 
in  their  present  form  long  after  his  time.  The 
most  interesting  of  these,  humanly  speaking, 
is  the  legend  of  his  birth,  probably  written  in 
the  eighth  century  B.  C.,  and  purporting  to  be 
a  copy  of  an  inscription  found  upon  a  statue 
of  the  great  king.  The  story  begins  in  this  way : 

“Sargon,  the  mighty  king,  the  king  of  Agade, 
am  I, 

My  mother  was  lowly,  my  father  T  knew  not, 

And  the  brother  of  my  father  dwells  in  the 
mountain. 

My  city  is  Azupiranu,  which  lies  on  the  bank 
of  the  Euphrates. 

My  lowly  mother  conceived  me,  in  secret 
she  brought  me  forth. 

She  set  me  in  a  basket  of  rushes,  with 
bitumen  she  closed  my  door; 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  S ARGON  I 


27 


She  cast  me  into  the  river,  which  rose  not 
over  me. 

The  river  bore  me  up;  unto  Akki,  the  irri¬ 
gator,  it  carried  me 

Akki,  the  irrigator,  with . lifted 

me  out. 

Akki,  the  irrigator,  as  his  own  son . 

reared  me, 

Akki,  the  irrigator,  as  his  gardener  ap¬ 
pointed  me. 

While  I  was  a  gardener  the  goddess  Ishtar 
loved  me, 

And  for  ...  .  -four  years  I  ruled  the 

kingdom. 

The  black-headed  peoples  I  ruled,  I  governed) 

Mighty  mountains  with  axes  of  bronze  did 
I  destroy. 

I  climbed  the  upper  mountains; 

I  burst  through  the  lower  mountains. 

The  country  of  the  sea  three  times  did  I 
besiege ; 

Dilmun  did . 

Unto  the  great  Durilu  I  went  up 

.  .  .  .  .  I  altered . 

Whatsoever  king  shall  be  exalted  after  me, 


Let  him  rule,  let  him  govern  the  black  headed 
peoples ; 

Mighty  mountains  with  axes  of  bronze  let 
him  destroy. 

Let  him  climb  the  upper  mountains; 


28  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

Let  him  burst  through  the  lower  mountains. 

The  country  of  the  sea  let  him  three  times 
besiege 

And  Dilmun . 

To  the  great  Dur-ilu  let  him  go  up  .  .  . 

[  .  .  .  .  ]  from  my  city  Accad  [  .  .  .  ]”* 
The  king  who  was  thus  introduced  to  the 
world  has  been  slowly  emerging  from  the  mists 
of  myth,  through  legend,  into  historical  cer¬ 
tainty.1 2  Traditions  such  as  this  concerning  a 
hero’s  early  days  are  common  enough  in  the 
past  concerning  characters  undoubtedly  histor¬ 
ical.  Whatever  his  origin  Sargon,  whose  name 
is  written  in  the  form  Sharrukin,  rose  to  be 
king  in  Accad,  and  began  to  build  an  empire. 
Some  only  of  his  campaigns  are  vaguely  known 
to  us,  and  their  order  is  doubtful.  It  seems 
probable  that  his  first  move  was  southward  into 
Sumer,  and  thence  on  against  the  city  of  Durilu, 
on  the  borders  of  Elam,  which  fell  before  him. 

1  This  beautiful  and  interesting  legend  was  first  discovered  by  Sir 
Henry  Rawlinson  ( Athenaeum ,  No.  2080,  Sept.  7,  1807).  It  was  first 
published  in  III  R.  4,  No.  7,  and  in  full  by  King,  Cuneiform  Texts ,  xiii, 
pp.  42,  ff.,  and  by  him  again  in  the  Chronicles  concerning  Early  Baby¬ 
lonian  Kings,  ii,  pp.  87,  ff.  Transliteration  with  translation  also  in 
Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels,  pp.  135,  ff. 

2  It  has  been  maintained  that  Sargon  and  all  his  deeds  are  unhis- 
torical  (Winckler,  Geschichte  Bab.  und  Assyriens,  p.  38),  and  Hommel 
has  supposed  the  existence  of  another  Sargon  whom  he  located  about 
2000  B.  C.,  whose  conquests  were  ascribed  to  the  earlier  king  ( Geschichte , 
Berlin,  1885,  p.  307,  note  4)  he  has,  however,  since  accepted  the  his¬ 
torical  character  of  this  king  (art.  Babylonia,  Diet,  of  the  Bible,  Hastings, 
i,  p.  225).  Maspero  believes  that  it  is  Sargon  II  (722-705  B.  C.)  who 
is  thus  projected  backward  ( Dawn  of  Civilization,  New  York,  1885, 
p.  599),  but  has  since  withdrawn  it,  and  identifies  Sargon  with  Shar- 
gani-shar-ali,  that  is  Shargali-sharri. 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  SARGON  I 


29 


His  conquests  were  then  carried  on  to  the 
Persian  Gulf,  and  the  Chronicle1  records  that 
he  crossed  its  waters,  proceeding  probably 
against  the  island  of  Dilmun,  which  became  a 
part  of  his  empire.  In  his  eleventh  year  lie 
made  a  raid  into  the  far  west,  and  according  to 
the  Chronicle2  “subdued  it  in  its  full  extent/' 
and  united  it  under  one  control,  setting  up  his 
images,  probably  at  the  Dog  River  in  Syria 
where  later  kings  were  to  follow  his  example,3 
and  bringing  home  his  booty.  Of  no  former 
king  had  it  been  said  that  he  had  thus  actually 
ruled  where  he  had  conquered  in  the  west,  for 
no  one  of  his  predecessors  had  attempted  more 
than  mere  raids  beyond  the  limits  of  Bab}donia. 
After  the  western  campaigns  he  marched  against 
Kasalla,  whose  location  is  still  unknown,  and 
as  the  Chronicle  records,4  “he  turned  Kasalla 
into  mounds  and  heaps  of  ruins,  and  within  it 
left  not  a  perch  for  a  bird," — a  description 
quite  worthy  of  one  of  the  great  Assyrian 
destroyers. 

In  his  later  years  he  was  overtaken  by  re¬ 
volts  on  the  part  of  those  who  had  felt  his 
heavy  hand  in  war.  They  were  able  even  to 
organize  against  him,  and  besiege  him  in  his 
capital  city  of  Agade.  Even  “in  his  old  age"  he 

1  Chronicle  Concerning  Sargon,  etc.  (Br.  Mus.  No.  26472,  King, 
Chronicles  concerning  Early  Babylonian  Kings,  ii,  pp.  3,  ff.).  The  allu¬ 
sion  here  is  to  the  expression  “The  Sea  in  the  East  he  crossed,”  line  3. 

2  Ibid.,  line  4. 

3  See  below,  p.  240. 

4  King,  op.  cit.,  p.  5. 


30  HISTOEY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYEIA 


was  able  to  overcome  so  formidable  a  danger, 
and  also  made  an  expedition  against  the  land 
of  Subartu,  which  had  apparently  joined  in  the 
rebellion,  and  severely  punished  it. 

Echoes  only  of  his  works  of  peace  have 
reached  our  ears.  He  is  said  so  to  have  ex¬ 
tended  the  boundaries  of  Agade  as  to  make 
it  as  great  as  was  Babylon  in  his  day,  while 
Babylon  itself  received  a  friendly  touch  in  the 
clearing  of  rubbish  out  of  the  city  trenches.1 

It  was,  however,  as  a  conqueror  that  his  fame 
endured,  and  so  far  away  as  Susa,  in  Elam, 
the  ruins  have  yielded  in  modern  times  a  beau¬ 
tiful  monument  of  Sargon,  which  portrays  him 
in  the  middle  of  battle  with  rows  of  captives, 
while  a  god  clubs  others  confined  in  a  net.  The 
sculptures  are  quite  suggestive  of  those  of 
Eannatum,  but  represent  a  distinct  advance  in 
artistic  skill. 

His  later  days  were  darkened  by  famine  in 
the  land,  which  gave  him  no  rest,  and  this  was 
ascribed  to  a  visitation  from  the  god  Marduk, 
who  was  displeased  with  some  of  his  deeds. 
There  is  no  longer  any  need  to  doubt  either 
the  great  king’s  personality  or  his  great  deeds. 
A  figure  he  was  of  heroic  size,  and  to  him  is  to 
be  ascribed  more  than  to  any  other  the  estab¬ 
lishment  of  the  Semitic  people  as  the  superior 
political  force  in  the  land. 

The  immediate  successor  of  Sargon  was 


Chronicle,  obverse  lines  IS,  19. 


' 

i 

* 


11—31 


,  •  .  :  . 


probably  M  onishtum,  who  ha<  •  defend 
by  force  the  rnpire  which  Sargon  h  d  >eguu 
He  defeated  a  confederation  of  thirl  two 

But  the  chief  in  forest  of 

...  m  ,.v-  . 

much  rath-  h;  t  ;tr.i  :e  m  •  .  *  ••  ci 


m 


Aistom  Okl  wtnoib  tffmirt  to  umhf  o no l/I  ’ .«  -  h  ><fO 

.b.M^dt8b8t  J  ire  [ /trow  ■ 

a  k ;  •  e  -:  msg-ipM  ;{ab 

no  flobfi$bME  nl  modi  hooutMviqoKj 

< -doffo'iA  Bodo’TorfooK  .1  4WioT  ^friioiabL/L  /wuSl 
chased  great  tracts  •  &pOfeh.\ahg*I 

sums  for  rac  i  acre,  an  1  <  iving  h  ■ 


as  cable  or  /  ,m-s  to  e  ' 


.  i-  ^ 


torn  er  cvvoerw  l  these 

oh  reo  •  uii  Irect .  .  xt  ;  .  .  toi 

w  w  ■  eke-v  '  • 

V  rep1. tee  0  •  •  . 

oi  Ac  ad  were  sel  .!••-.  d  rr<  e  ■  •  -r:.  • 

>  -  dab  v  n  a  to- 

From  the'  Tombs  of  M&mshtusu  he  eh) pi  re 

1  BritiiW  Mti  >ui;  irari.  iiti  »,  S  5603  r  5r>6T:l. 

■  //  •  c  a  A*.!  l.  p.  21  2. 

*  It'  was  found  by  M.  J.  dc  lorgan  in  the  tvinter  of  1S97-9S 

. 


Obelisk  of  Manishtusu  of  black  diorite,  1.40  meters 
in  height,  found  at  Susa  April  7,  1898,  by  M.  Jaccpies 
de  Morgan. 

[Reproduced  from  photogravure  in  D^ldgation  en 
Perse.  Mdmoires,  Tome  I.  Recherches  Archeo- 
logiques,  Paris,  1900.] 


THE  EMPIRE  OE  S ARGON  I  31 

probably  Manishtusu,  who  had  to  defend 
by  force  the  empire  which  Sargon  had  begun. 
He  defeated  a  confederation  of  thirty-two 
kings1  which  had  been  formed  against  him. 
But  the  chief  interest  of  his  reign  lies  not, 
as  in  Sargon' ’  s  case,  in  the  campaigns,  but 
much  rather  in  a  strangely  interesting  social 
and  economic  document.  On  a  magnificent 
obelisk,  carried  away  out  of  Babylonia  to  Susa 
in  later  days  as  a  trophy  of  war,  but  recovered 
by  the  modern  archaeologist,2  Manishtusu  has 
recorded  in  sixty-nine  columns  of  Semitic  writing 
a  great  transaction  in  land.  In  the  neighbor¬ 
hood  of  Kish,  Marad,  Dur-Sin  and  Shittab,  four 
cities  of  northern  Babylonia,  Manishtusu  pur¬ 
chased  great  tracts  of  land,  paying  definite 
sums  for  each  acre,  and  giving  besides  presents 
such  as  cattle  or  garments  to  each  one  of  the 
former  owners.  Upon  these  tracts  there  had 
been  no  less  than  eighty-seven  overseers,  and 
fifteen  hundred  and  sixty-four  laborers,  for  whose 
employment  elsewhere  the  king  undertakes  to 
provide.  To  replace  these  upon  the  lands,  men 
of  Accad  were  settled  there  and  the  movement 
of  these  to  new  quarters  near  Kish  was  quite 
probably  made  for  some  political  purpose. 

From  the  hands  of  Manishtusu  the  empire 

1  British  Museum  fragments  of  monoliths,  Nos.  56630,  56631.  Com¬ 
pare  Jensen,  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie,  xv,  p.  248,  Note  1,  and  King, 
Sumer  and  Akkad,  p.  211,  note  2. 

2  It  was  found  by  M.  J.  de  Morgan  in  the  winter  of  1897-98.  See 
Scheil,  Textes  Elamitiques-Semitiques,  i,  pp.  1,  If.  ( delegation  en  Perse, 
Memoire,  ii). 


32  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


passed  to  Urumush.  From  him  there  have 
come  to  us  only  small  votive  objects  bearing 
very  brief  inscriptions.  These  were  all  dedicated 
by  the  king  himself  in  Nippur,  Lagash  and 
Sippar,  and  it  is  a  fair  assumption  that  his 
dominion  covered  these  widely  separated  places 
as  well  as  Kish,  whose  royal  title  he  bears  upon 
them  all.  Nothing  is  known  of  any  expedition 
of  his  into  the  west,  which  was  by  this  time 
doubtless  quite  free  of  any  control  from  Baby¬ 
lonia.  He  made  a  raid  into  Elam,  and  brought 
back  booty  from  Barakhsu.1  This  was  a  re¬ 
versal  of  the  older  order  when  the  Elamites 
were  the  aggressors  and  invaded  Sumer,  as 
indeed  they  would  be  able  to  do  again.  His 
reign,  which  was  probably  short,  ended  in- 
gloriously  in  a  palace  revolution.2 

The  next  king  of  the  dynasty  was  Naram- 
Sin,  a  son  of  Sargon,  and  quite  worthy  to  hold 
his  father’s  empire  and  to  extend  its  conquests. 
In  his  hands  the  glory  diminished  during  the 
two  reigns  intervening,  returns  in  full  meas¬ 
ure. 

His  first  campaign  was  against  Rish-Adad, 
king  of  the  city  of  Apirak.  The  city  was  taken 
only  after  a  siege  with  a  regular  investment 
carried  on  by  mines,  and  when  success  was  at 

1  Vase  from  Nippur,  Hilprecht,  Old  Babylonian  Inscriptions,  No.  5, 
compare  pages  ibid.  20,  21.  See  also  Thureau-Dangin,  Die  Sumerischen 
und  Akkadischen  Konigsinschriften,  pp.  162,  163. 

2  This  notice  derives  from  a  late  tradition.  See  Boissier,  Choix  de 
Textes  relatifs  d.  la  divination,  i,  pp.  44,  81 ;  Jastrow,  Die  Religion  Baby- 
loniens  und  Assyriens,  ii,  p.  333. 


■ 

■ 


/ 


/ 


. 


* 


11—33 


f 


l  the 

slavery,  and  .heii  kir.;  •  • ,r:  ..  o 

suggests  some  connection  with  western  life  and 

<  ■ '  (livitir 


tnoug  ht  as  it  is 
ob  ,L  .Myd  Jmifot  rmS<  htmiv/L  *io  ofa  >  AindqbidiT 
iitaod  biaifja  todihilw  ,'8081  M  InqA  di£|ioM 

\h :guii  vn.Ixij/fhtd^/T'-iij  irud*  vd  ydqoit  *»,  ^b^m'da 
ffoqir=  IxaJ  nwo.  nib  bedims b  «nd  orb.-  tmni3[ 
iadJ^eu*  bnad  glgnid  -ait  ayodA.  .^aoni  in\iA  adt  ii  >iiiw 
arj,|  ?pfKbtqm^ii \,nvrot.&' iiift-uim#/*.  ‘to-  om-nrcm  bind 
fiixmniixjoai  .  adi  :o  ono  §i  eidT 

|i  $npf  ad)  lo  yiu^ii.  on  i  Jin  oi/irasq  Jyaihua 
aiH  .paibiiEd  ykbrdrabn  bray  boviaaaup  ^Jd'Jaqej 
.af  §nd  aid  ^ianilad.  boinajf  r  i fiiw  Banwoio  ei  bnoii 
mbf  Jiol  adT  '  drtbdoq  nan  §noI  ‘  binod  l  mi  .^nol 

,77T)d  B  d&jA&V>  firri j> rf  aril  ’  TmP  wfi  OlHftd  P  fcrtbdvdra 


r<V  4  C4< 

.  vV 


blind  adi’bbn  fazn  olf  tnd  n  ^nrniai/8 

oiff  .blind  id'«'rf  aril  di  bbd  yfnn'i  >i  v/orin  oxodv/- 
;bddnbnna  Ibaboiii  ^bmt  Mb  Sgif  Imib  ..a-dbludda  jo-w 
ai/rrn  $rth4ad  aiaibfiM  did  MB  s<ihf  tiai%  oil  b  //<  tafi 
iaidt  noiaib/io^  baabrr  bill  ;b  riavtf  .djiaf/fink  bVin 
emu  i  c  be  Jin  .terajbf.wido  aaoaiqi  Maum  idi  ‘to  axxo b 

-a/.;  .^rbT.  eo  M.Mrvd'/F  f  j[  F )ii0b*  ;q*h  J  . 
over  r.hc  vnnana  f.O(>i>[  ,binj  .1  blaoT-  tfcair6iti 
J  *y  ■;  ,ix,  vhicb  r  •'•  •  •  '  - 

country  of  the  north  •;  r  ■■  the  bord<  n 
of  Elam.  This  kingdom  v,> 


>  The  camps:  *s  uk  V  in  the  O 

Si;-'  .by.  ' 

■ 

» it  was  found  April  6,  1898  and  deacrfb 

1 

<  Texte*  HUxTfi-ScMttVjWt*,  i,  p,. .  5 -  ft- 


Triumphal  Stele  of  Naram  Sin,  found  by  M.  J.  de 
Morgan  at  Susa,  April  6,  1898,  whither  it  had  been 
carried  as  a  trophy  by  Shutruk-Nakhkhunte,  king  of 
Elam,  who  has  inscribed  his  own  text  upon  the  cone 
which  the  king  faces.  Above  the  king’s  head  are  the 
faint  remains  of  Naram-Sin’s  own  inscription. 

This  is  one  of  the  greatest  monuments  of  the 
earliest  Semitic  art.  The  figure  of  the  king  is 
superbly  conceived  and  admirably  handled.  His 
head  is  crowned  with  a  horned  helmet,  his  hair  is 
long,  his  beard  long  and  pointed.  The  left  arm 
sustains  a  battle  axe,  and  the  hand  grasps  a  bow, 
whose  arrow  is  firmly  held  in  the  right  hand.  The 
arms,  shoulders,  and  legs  are  nude,  the  feet  sandalled. 
Below  the  great  king  are  his  soldiers  bearing  arms 
and  standards.  Even  in  this  ruined  condition  this 
is  one  of  the  masterpieces  of  ancient  art. 

[Reproduced  from  Delegation  en  Perse.  Ale- 
moires,  Tome  I.  Paris,  1900.] 


THE  EMPIRE  OE  S ARGON  1  33 

last  secured  the  people  were  carried  away  into 
slavery,  and  their  king  perished.  His  name 
suggests  some  connection  with  western  life  and 
thought,  as  it  is  compounded  of  the  divine 
name  Adad,  or  Hadad,  but  the  location  of  his 
little  kingdom  has  not  yet  been  found.1  Naram- 
Sin’s  greatest  expedition  was  into  the  land  of 
Magan,  the  Arabian  desert,  where  the  Semitic 
king  Mannu-dannu  was  lord.  He  was  slain 
and  from  his  land  the  conqueror  brought  away 
heavy  blocks  of  diorite,  from  which  his  artificers 
fashioned  a  stele  so  magnificent,  that  Elamite 
kings  were  artistically  fully  justified  in  carrying 
it  off  to  adorn  their  capital  city  of  Susa,  whence 
it  has  come  unto  modern  eyes.2  Upon  it 
Naram-Sin  records  his  victories  in  nine  battles 
in  one  year,  and  in  it  also  he  assumes  the  high 
title  “king  of  the  four  quarters  (of  the  world)” 
in  token  of  his  attainment  of  what  seemed  to 
him  to  be  a  world-wide  dominion.  In  support 
of  this  boast  he  is  able  also  to  report  victories 
over  the  Armanu3  and  over  Satuni,4  king  -of 
Lulubu,  which  lies  far  away  in  the  mountain 
country  of  the  north-east,  beyond  the  borders 
of  Elam.  This  kingdom  was  also  a  possession 

1  The  campaign  is  mentioned  in  the  Omen  Tablet  of  Sargon  and 
Naram  Sin  (Neo-Babylonian  period)  §xii,  lines  8  and  9  (King,  Chron¬ 
icles,  pp.  44,  45),  and  is  confirmed  by  the  Chronicles  of  Sargon  and 
Naram  Sin.  Reverse  lines  1  and  2.  King,  op.  cit.,  pp.  8,  9. 

2  It  was  found  April  6,  1898,  and  is  best  described  in  M.  J.  de  Mor¬ 
gan,  Delegation  en  Perse,  i,  Recherches  Archeologiques,  pp.  144-158. 

3  Comptes  Rendus,  1899,  p.  348,  translation  by  Thureau-Dangin. 

*  Textes  Elam-Semitiques,  i,  pp.  53,  ff. 


34  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


of  the  Semitic  people,  and  another  of  its  rulers, 
with  the  name  Anu-banini,  also  of  this  early 
period,  erected  a  fine  monument  to  himself  by 
sculpturing  his  goddess  Ninni  or  Ishtar,  with 
his  own  figure  and  the  names  of  other  of  the 
well  known  Semitic  gods,  on  the  face  of  a  cliff 
near  Ser-i-Pul-i-Zohab,  writing  in  good  Semitic 
words  his  curses  upon  any  who  should  destroy 
the  work  of  his  chisel.1 

But  Naram-Sin  was  still  more  famous  as  a 
builder,  for  he  rebuilt  temples  in  Nippur2  and 
in  Agade,  and  erected  at  his  own  cost  the  temple 

1  The  inscription  was  found  February  28,  1891,  by  J.  de  Morgan, 
and  is  published  by  Scheil  ( Recueil  de  Travaux  relatifs  a  la  Phil,  et 
Archeolol.  Egypt,  et  Ass.,  vol.  xiv,  liv.  1  &  2,  pp.  100,  ff.).  See  also  Hil- 
precht,  Old  Bab.  Insc.,  vol.  i,  part  i,  p.  14,  and  Hommel,  Proceedings  of 
the  Society  of  Bib.  Archceology,  xxi,  pp.  115,  116.  Newly  translated  by 
Thureau-Dangin,  Die  Sumerischen  und  Akkadischen  Konigsinschriften, 
pp.  172,  173.  The  site  has  recently  been  visited  by  King  ( Sumer  und 
Akkad,  p.  250,  note  3),  who  critically  examined  the  text.  The  in¬ 
scription  had,  however,  been  known  long  before  it  was  seen  by  De 
Morgan.  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson  knew  it,  and,  indeed,  correctly  under¬ 
stood  it,  save  only  that  he  made  a  slight  error  in  reading  the  name. 
This  anticipation  of  later  work  by  the  great  explorer  and  decipherer 
is  made  plain  in  the  following  words  extracted  from  an  unpublished 
letter  written  under  date  of  September  17,  1880,  by  Rawlinson  to  Pro¬ 
fessor  Sayce:  “Many  thanks  for  your  references,  which  I  believe,  how¬ 
ever,  were  all  duly  entered  in  my  notebooks.  I  am  afraid  we  don’t 
take  quite  the  same  view  of  the  Geography  of  the  Inscriptions.  My 
own  idea  is  that,  at  any  rate  until  the  time  of  Sargon,  the  Assyrians 
hardly  penetrated  beyond  the  outer  range  of  the  Perhim  plateau.  I 
think  I  can  trace  all  the  early  campaigns  (and  can  identify  many  of 
the  names)  along  the  western  side  of  the  great  range  from  Sulimanieh 
to  Susa.  Instead  of  Nizir  being  at  Alwend  I  place  it  at  Bend-i-N uh, 
Noah’s  ridge,  the  culminating  range  of  Zagros.  The  inscription  at 
Sir  Pul  belongs  to  Kannubanini,  king  of  the  Lulubini,  thus  fixing  their 
locality  and  showing  them  to  be  identical  with  the  modern  Luri  or  Luli.” 

2  Brick  stamps  of  this  king  have  been  found  at  Nippur  bearing  the 
legend,  “Naram-Sin,  builder  of  the  temple  of  Bel.”  Hilprecht,  Old 
Babylonia  Ins.,  i,  part  i,  p.  18. 


Door  Socket  of  Naram  Sin. 

[Museum  of  Yale  University,  reproduced  by  per¬ 
mission  of  Professor  A.  T.  Clay.] 


T)  VSSVR! A 


other  ci  its  nhr 

* 

hi  ■  .is  ;  o i<  !.N h  ? :  e  or  ;dht  *: 

id  own  ...ore  and  the  na  ru<  -  of  otht  .•  ••  he 

•  fi  L(  ■  i  i  hoRto  >y 

■  -  ..  ■  j  :  y.  r  -.1  ,S  d 

.fll3  io  tsyloo3  ioo(l 

■  ;  :  !  '  4  • 

loq.Ycf  i^ooboiqai  ,ytiB‘l9Wr  J  oUfl  to  muayui'/I] 
[.vuC >  .T  .A  loaaeloih  lo  noiaairff 


1  rh*.  iiwcriplio  r.  aid  ?  2  ,  i 

-r '  ■  ■  •  2  •  .  .V*  i  v-  ., 

■ 

it  ••  h>  n  a  <f  A 


*A+i  c 

!'  1  •/ 

Mori'  m. 

, 

■ 

, 

■ 

* 

•'  -  .. 

'i  ?s  '•  ■>? 

. 

II — 34 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  SARGON  1 


35 


to  the  sun  god  in  Sippar.1 2  Besides  these  temples 
this  great  king  laid  the  foundations  and  erected 
the  enormous  outer  wall  of  Nippur— the  great 
wall  Nimit-Marduk.  He  first  dug  for  his 
foundations  about  five  meters  below  the  level 
of  the  ground  down  to  the  solid  clay.  Upon 
this  he  “built  of  worked  clay  mixed  with  cut 
straw  and  laid  up  en  masse  with  roughly  sloping 
or  battered  sides  to  a  total  height  of  about 
5.5  meters.  Upon  the  top  of  this  large  base, 
which  is  about  13.75  meters  wide,  a  wall  of 
the  same  enormous  width’72  was  raised.  The 
bricks  were  “dark  gray  in  color,  firm  in  texture, 
and  of  regular  form.  In  quality  they  are  un¬ 
surpassed  by  the  work  of  any  later  king.”3 
Each  of  these  bricks  bore  the  stamped  name 
and  titles  of  the  king.  A  king  who  could  and 
did  construct  such  massive  fortifications  must 
have  possessed  a  kingdom  of  great  political 
importance,  of  whose  extent,  how’ever,  it  is 
now  impossible  to  form  a  very  clear  idea. 

It  is  small  wonder  that  a  king  who  had  thus 
won  honor  among  men  as  a  builder  of  mighty 
works  and  an  organizer  of  a  great  kingdom 
should  be  deified4  by  his  followers  and  wor¬ 
shiped  as  a  creator. 

1  V  R.f  p.  64,  col.  ii,  lines  57-60  (trans.  by  Peiser  in  Keilinschrift, 
Bib.,  iii,  part  ii,  p.  105). 

2  Hilprecht,  Old  Bab.  Inst.,  vol.  i,  part  ii,  p.  20. 

3  This  is  the  judgment  of  Haynes,  who  dug  down  this  wall.  See 
Hilprecht,  op.  cit.,  p.  21. 

*  Cesnola  found  at  Curium  in  Cyprus  a  seal  with  this  inscription, 
“Apal-Ishtar  (?)  son  of  Ilu-bana,  servant  of  the  god  Naram-Sin”  (see 


36  HISTOBY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYEIA 


When  Naran-Sin  had  paid  the  debt  of  nature 
there  came  to  the  throne  which  he  had  made 
more  famous  than  ever,  a  king  whose  fame  was 
worthy  of  him,  who  bears  the  name  of  Shargali- 
sharri,  son  of  Dati-Ellil,  who  was  probably  a 
member  of  the  same  family  as  Sargon  and 
Naram-Sin.  Both  as  conqueror  and  as  builder 
of  historical  edifices  he  is  to  be  ranked  with 
his  predecessor.  It  is,  however,  unfortunate 
that  his  campaigns  are  known  to  us  only  from 
the  date  formulae  upon  commercial  documents, 
and  not  from  historical  inscriptions.  But  arid 
as  these  are,  and  void  of  all  detail,  they  yet 
give  us  a  picture  of  extended  conquest,  as 
well  as  of  successful  defense  of  that  which  had 
been  already  won. 

In  his  reign  the  Elamites  attempted  to  take 
vengeance  for  the  raids  of  Sargon,  and  forming 
a  coalition  with  Zakhara  invaded  Accad,  and 
attacked  Opis  and  Sakli,  but  were  overcome 
and  driven  out.  In  the  very  next  year  Shargali- 
sharri  invaded  the  west,  and  penetrated  the 
Amorite  country  as  far  as  Basar.* 1  From  these 
faint  hints  we  may,  perhaps,  suppose  that  he 
was  able  to  hold  together  the  kingdom  which 

Tompkins,  Abraham  and  His  Age,  London,  1897,  plate  x,  and  p.  xxviii). 
This  would  seem  to  show  that  Naram-Sin  had  been  deified.  See  also 
the  Tello  seal  with  the  words:  “Naram-Sin,  the  mighty,  god  of  Accad, 
king  of  the  four  quarters  (of  the  world) :  Lugal-ushun-gal,  the  scribe, 
Patesi  of  Lagash.”  Thureau-Dangin,  Die  Sumerischen  und  Akkad- 
ischen  Konigsinschriften,  pp.  168,  169. 

1  See  the  date  formulae,  published  in  Thureau-Dangin,  Die  Sumer¬ 
ischen  und  Akkadischen  Konigsinschriften ,  p.  225. 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  SARGON  I 


37 


his  fathers  had  handed  down  to  him  and  per¬ 
haps  to  extend  it.  He  had  to  discipline  Kutu, 
in  the  hill  country  east  of  the  Lower  Zab,  and 
took  Sharlak,  its  king,  prisoner.  He  even  pene¬ 
trated  into  Gutium  two  years  later,  but  no 
report  of  his  success  has  reached  us.  Here  one 
may  begin  to  discern  the  first  signs  of  the  day 
when  this  land  of  Gutium,  amid  the  mountains 
of  Kurdistan,  should  be  able  to  dominate  even 
Babylonia  itself.  To  this  earlier  period,  when 
Babylonia  was  still  able  to  maintain  its  ancient 
dignity  as  against  its  future  adversary,  belongs 
a  mace  head,  found  in  our  day  at  Sippar,  and 
bearing  the  legend:  “Lasirab  the  mighty,  king 
of  Gutium . dedicated  [this.]  Who¬ 

ever  changes  this  inscription,  or  writes  his 
name  hereon,  may  the  gods  of  Gutium,  Innina 
and  Sin  tear  up  his  foundation,  and  exterminate 
his  seed,  and  his  campaigns  .  .  .  not  pros¬ 
per”1 

It  is,  however,  as  a  builder  of  great  works 
that  he  has  best  been  remembered.  Far  down 
in  the  great  mound,  which  covers  the  ancient 
city  of  Nippur,  is  found  a  “pavement  consisting 
of  two  courses  of  burned  bricks  of  uniform  size 
and  mold.  Each  brick  measures  about  fifty 
centimeters  [19^  inches]  square  and  is  eight 

1  First  published  by  Winckler,  Zeitschrift  fiir  Assyriologie ,  iv,  p.  406. 
Translated  by  Hilprecht,  Old  Babylonian  Inscriptions,  i,  part  i,  pp. 
12,  13,  on  which  see  comments  by  Jensen,  Zeitschrift  fiir  Assyriologie, 
viii,  239,  240.  Revised  translation  by  Thureau-Dangin,  Die  Sumerischen 
und  Akkadischen  Konigsinschriften,  pp.  170,  171. 


38  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


centimeters  [334  inches]  thick.  ”l  Most  of  the 
bricks  in  this  pavement  are  stamped,  and  a 
number  of  them  contain  the  inscription  of 
Shargali-sharri,  while  others  bear  the  stamp  of 
Naram-Sin.  The  pavement  had  been  laid  by 
the  latter  and  then  restored,  with  the  addition 
of  new  materials  by  his  successor. 

A  mace-head  found  at  Sippar  and  dedicated 
to  the  god  Shamash  shows  that  Shargali-sharri 
was  a  patron  of  this  temple;  and  at  the  same 
time  we  know  that  he  laid  the  foundations  of 
temples  in  Babylon  to  Anunit  and  a-mal.  Of 
these  latter  no  traces  have  been  found  in  the 
city  which  later  dominated  the  world,  for  the 
water  level  has  risen  and  they  have  either 
perished  or  been  rendered  inaccessible.2  So  far 
as  yet  appears  Nippur  and  its  temple  Ekur 
were  the  chief  objects  of  his  concern. 

It  is  not  yet  time  to  say  whether  his  reign 
represents  an  artistic  advance  over  that  of 
Naram-Sin,  and  it  seems  hardly  probable  that 
so  great  a  change  could  have  occurred  as  is 
represented  in  that  period  of  renaissance  in 
sculpture,  but  the  seal  which  Ibni-sharru  the 
scribe  presented  to  his  royal  master3  is  one  of 
the  most  beautiful  attainments  of  the  glyptic 

1  Hilprecht,  Old  Babylonian  Inscriptions,  vol.  i,  part  ii,  p.  19. 

2  The  reference  to  the  temples  in  Babylon  is  found  in  the  Date 
Formulae  (Thureau-Dangin,  Die  Sumerischen  und  Akkadischen  Konigs- 
inschriften,  p.  225).  The  earliest  remains  of  buildings  yet  recovered 
in  Babylon  belong  to  the  period  of  Hammurapi  (R.  Koldewey,  Das 
Wiedererstchende  Babylon,  p.  303). 

3  Collection  de  Clercq,  No.  46. 


Mace  Head  of  Shargali-sharri,  with  inscription  be¬ 
neath,  reading: 

Shargali-sharri,  king  of  Accad,  dedicated  (this) 

to  Shamash  in  Sippar. 

Now  in  the  British  Museum,  No.  91146.  See 
Cuneiform  Texts,  vol.  xxi,  plate  No.  1  (King). 

[Reproduced  from  C.  J.  Ball,  Light  from  the  East. 
London,  1899.] 


n ) ;  >  j  1 1  ' 
ntimcti :  ' 


'  !JY  /"  :  A  AS  t  A  WYR'X 


nehes]  f  ml  Most  of  the 
■■  •  n  e  k  t  a-  tainiy-.  i  :  r  .  a 

-  • 

•  •  ri,  while  others  bear  :he  ••••(:■?;•  »p  of 

latter  and  then  restored,  with  the  a* 
o  new  mat  -rials  by  his  successor. 

. 

~ad  noitqrfagfif  dliw  16  haoH  AoriM  '  * 

and§aif>J&ke 

-(aiifl)  dioMiibab  hfeioaA  k>  §irrl  ■ 

,rn*;|qi$  iii  dp.&m&dP*  at 

iu  W(>71  he 

Sih  w<9\  :  !  .T, /9  ntrvfl  baoifhoiq^ifj 

jAKrAi  ewbnoAE' 

. 

were  th*  <  m««  m  •  of  his  coma  ■ 

■  ■  •  •  •,*  ay  •■..;*  ;  b  •  ••  • -AAn 

e  -resents  aft  is  tie  advarw*  a  t  of 

Sin,  and  it  seems  hardly  nr 

% 

■y 

resented  in  that 

culptu  c  but  die  seal  wi  <  •  ni-shar.ru  the 

1  ?'  *>  '*«  it.  e  ^ylonidn  Jv  ten-pk-  •.*,  vol.  i;  part  u,  j 

*!  e.  ■  ;f i  •  the  •  ;•?«.  ii)  R,!>j  on  U  foi  .t<> 

y hr  <  trlsesf  re’.naina  ot  builoing  i  >  ,?re<i 

:>i  3a?  o  -  iong  •>•  of  He  .nmrapi  (R.  Kohir  v  Oas 

■  ■'  •-  ~o  ;  -  , .  . 

* •» , olio  .'on  de  •  \;o.  4C* 


1 1 — :>S 


. 


I 


" 


1 


THE  EMPIRE  OF  SARGON  1 


39 


art  in  the  earliest  times.  The  hand  which 

designed  and  cut  its  easy  lines  belonged  to 
an  age  of  no  mean  artistic  excellence. 

While  Naram-Sin  and  Shargali-sharri  were 

reigning  in  Akkad,  the  city  of  Lagash  was 

governed  by  Ur-babbar  and  Lugal-ushumgal, 
who  bore  the  titles  patesi,  and  both  acknowl¬ 
edged  their  dependence  upon  the  Semitic  lords 
of  Accad.1  Lagash  had  risen  from  its  ruins 
and  would  soon  again  re-establish  its  in¬ 
dependence. 

After  Naram-Sin  and  Shargali-sharri  the 

golden  age  of  Accad  passed  away.  There  ruled 
in  its  dynasty  seven  other  kings  whose  names 
posterity  preserved,  with  the  number  of  years 
of  reign2  in  three  of  them,  but  they  were  mere 
shadows,  and  the  power  which  had  endured 
while  the  Semite  was  mastering  the  land  and 
taking  over  its  length  and  breadth  from  the 
Sumerians  during  the  reigns  of  the  three  great 
kings,  was  in  their  day  slipping  away  and  the 
Sumerians  would  now  retrieve  for  a  time  much 
that  had  been  lost. 

The  dynasty  of  Accad  had  lasted  one  hundred 
and  ninety-seven  years,  as  the  ancient  chro- 
nologists  were  able  to  calculate,  and  was  suc¬ 
ceeded  in  the  rule3  by  a  dynasty  of  Erech  with 

1  See  tpe  offerings  to  Naram-Sin  and  Shargali-sharri  in  the  small 
texts,  Thureau-Dangin,  Die  Sumerischen  und  Akkadischen  Konigsin- 
8chriften,  pp.  164,  165,  168,  169. 

2  See  the  Chronological  Tables,  Vol.  I. 

3  See  the  Chronological  Tables,  Vol.  I. 


40  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

but  five  kings  who  ruled  but  twenty-six  years. 
None  of  their  monuments  have  yet  been  re¬ 
covered,  and  they  vanish  as  silently  as  they 
appear.  This  little  period  of  Sumerian  re¬ 
action  against  the  Semitic  rule  over  their  lands 
was  brief  and  apparently  as  weak  and  insig¬ 
nificant.  *  While  it  was  in  progress  Lagash 
continued  to  have  its  native  rulers  who  wrote 
inscriptions  recording  their  building  and  restora¬ 
tion  of  temples.  If  one  might  judge  from  these 
literary  remains  the  fuller  life  of  Sumerians 
was  in  Lagash  rather  than  in  the  far  southern 
city  of  Erech.  These  patesis  knew  how  to 
carry  on  other  works  besides  those  of  the  cultus, 
for  one  of  them,  Ur-bau,  improved  the  irriga¬ 
tion  of  his  country. 

There  is,  however,  no  evidence  that  the 
patesis  of  Lagash  attempted  any  dominance  else¬ 
where  in  the  land,  but  were  rather  content  to 
develop  their  own  patrimony.  Whatever  gen¬ 
eral  Sumerian  domination  there  was  would  seem 
to  have  been  in  the  hands  of  the  people  of 
Erech.  From  them  the  power  was  wrenched  by 
an  invasion  from  Gutium,  an  avalanche  of 
Semites  precipitated  upon  the  old  culture  land 
again.  In  this  invasion  the  cities  made  power¬ 
ful  and  famous  by  the  dynasty  of  Sargon  suf¬ 
fered  equally  with  those  of  the  Sumerians,  and 
the  echo  of  their  united  plaints  reached  even 
to  the  Greek  period. 


CHAPTER  III 


BABYLONIAN  HISTORY  TO  THE  FALL  OF  LARSA 

While  the  kings  of  Erech  and  of  Gutium  held 
sway  in  turn  over  the  major  part  of  Babylonia, 
both  north  and  south,  the  city  of  Larsa  re¬ 
vived  in  power  and  produced  several  princes  in 
rapid  succession,  whose  works  entitle  them  to 
a  high  place  in  the  records  of  human  achieve¬ 
ment.  Their  political  status  is  but  imperfectly 
known,  and  we  are  unable  to  form  a  definite 
picture  of  Babylonia  under  the  general  rule  of 
kings  in  Erech,  or  in  Gutium,  with  princes  bear¬ 
ing  rule  separately  in  the  small  city  state  of 
Lagash,  each  of  the  latter  bearing  the  some¬ 
what  humbler  title  of  patesi.  The  names  of 
many  of  these  have  been  preserved,  and  the 
order  of  their  appearance  in  history  is  now  and 
again  established  by  synchronisms  with  the 
larger  ruling  dynasties,  while  a  few  others  may 
be  located  by  means  of  their  relationship  with 
these.  Many  remain  doubtful  as  to  order,  and 
yet  more  doubtful  as  to  character  and  historical 
importance,  while,  on  the  other  hand  a  few 
stand  out  as  among  the  greatest  names  in  the 
early  history  of  the  land.  Two  of  these,  Ur- 
Bau  and  Gudea,  are  especially  worthy  of  note 

41 


42  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


in  the  eyes  of  those  who  mark  with  interest 
the  progress  of  civilization  in  early  times. 

After  Ur-babbar  and  Lugal-ushumgal,  con¬ 
temporaries  of  Naram-Sin  and  Shargali-sharri, 
there  followed  perhaps  five  other  patesis  of 
Lagash  before  Ur-Bau.  From  him  have  come 
to  us  seven  inscriptions  in  the  Sumerian  tongue 
to  bear  witness  to  his  works  of  peace.  The 
longest  of  these,  covering  six  columns,  is  inscribed 
upon  his  statue,1  fashioned  of  diorite,  and  well 
wrought,  but  of  rather  low  artistic  value.  The 
figure  is  now  headless,  is  standing,  not  seated, 
and  is  short  and  heavy  in  outline.  Like  other 
inscriptions  of  the  same  period  it  contains  little 
material  for  political  history,  and  the  same  must 
be  said  of  his  shorter  inscriptions.  There  is 
no  word  of  battle  and  war,  the  patesi  is  ab¬ 
sorbed  in  brick  and  mortar,  and  at  his  order 
temples  rise  anew  in  all  the  quarters  of  his 
city.  His  greatest  work  was  the  rebuilding 
of  E-ninnu,  the  temple  of  Ningirsu.  For  it  he 
dug  deep  to  lay  its  foundations,  and  laid  them 
so  well  and  truly  that  they  endure  to  this  day, 
after  the  later  and  greater  patesi  Gudea  had 
re-erected  the  temple  upon  them  and  far  away 
in  the  Seleucid  period,  about  130  B.  C.,  a 
palace  had  been  reared  upon  them. 

1  Published  by  Heuzej^  in  De  Sarzec,  Decouverles  en  Chaldee ,  plates  7, 
8,  copied  and  translated  by  Amiaud,  in  the  same  work.  See  also  Y. 
Le  Gac  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie,  vii,  pp.  125,  ff.,  and  Jensen,  Keil. 
Bib.,  iii,  part  i,  pp.  19,  ff.  Revue  d' Assyriologie  et  d’  Archeologie  Orientale, 
ii,  pp.  124-135,  and  iii,,  pp.  42-48. 


Clay  Cone  of  Br-Bau,  patesi  of  Lagash.  British 
Museum,  No.  91063. 

[Reproduced  by  permission  of  the  Trustees  of 
the  British  Museum  from  A  Guide  to  the  Babylonian 
and  Assyrian  Antiquities.  London,  1908.] 


HI  WO  in  >i  BAKYi.oVfA  AND  ASS1  R 


it  e  e  *  a  Uo  mark  wit!  -,  interest 

/l  ess  '  . i Z : :  •  M>7  '  0  Co  I  ■ 

i  r-babbar  and  .vagal-uah  ar  ad  eon* 
rtv.-  ce  Na/am-Hin  and  F1  a  '■  ■■■-■■ai’i, 
r.ii  t  followed  perhaps  five  other  ;;  '<  of 

La gas.  before  Or-Rau.  From  hint  have  ;.orie 
to  us  seven  inscriptions  in  the  Sumeri&i 
c<  bear  wanes?*  to  his  works  of  peace.  The 
longest  of  these,  covering.:].':  columns,  is  inscribed 
rfeiiiitl  W  r^toq  pnkJkilJ  do  oqoQ :%&i& >, ! 

lo  brft  do  nofeairtnOcf  ^0  hobnbotq^^]'' 

$1?8  feS  W  dMvo  V  k  nerd  fiwwul/L'  itoMLadt 
f .800 1  jfobmkl  .vvdev^vVivk  «&vt\sa*&  bm> 

r-  i&  m  •  ial  i  ■•.♦!  y-  )k  u  nb  *  a  ;■ 

h  sorter  insc > 
no  i  '  •  l*  and  w-? 

sol  ■  ,  'k  and  raoi  ran  . 

■  i  -  a  .  '  ;  .  e  ,/  ul  i ! i‘  .i  v 

I  [is  greatest  work  ’\n. 
c-  Ikninnu,  ti  e  temple  (  Is  ;: 
dug  deep  to  lay  its  foundation' 

YO  \\vb  I  :  ;P:  1  i  ■. •  f  hey  „ 

after  the  -ater  and  greate  :  av  d  Gudea  had 
*  -creek  i  the  tei  iple  op  >n  .  and  tar  av  ay 

in  the  eieu*  id  period,  a  out  130  B.  a 
pi  *  I  ace  had  been  reared  upon  .  bom. 


must 

; )  is 

his 

O  .  •■  S  :  i  g 

hi 

<,  them 
'  05  day 


•'  Hyu^ey  in  O  S-iyy^  ,  /aV  .  e*  *; .  8  t>*  '  {..  •)  7 

ra •  t.wit  J  Ai  i:.  t iu»  » mie  vv*or  >  \ 

ii  pp.  124-  15,  ..  J  iii  pp.  42  4h. 


II— 4 


HISTORY  TO  THE  FALL  OF  LARS  A 


43 


Ur-Bau  had,  doubtless,  his  fair  share  of  the 
tumults  of  a  disturbed  age,  but  what  they 
may  have  been  he  had  no  care  to  inscribe  upon 
stone.  Besides  his  concern  for  religion  and  the 
cultus  no  echo  of  his  thought  for  the  people 
reaches  us,  save  that  he  supplied  the  historic 
old  city  quarter  of  Gu-edin  with  water  by  some 
form  of  canalization.1 

After  a  brief  lull  in  its  fortunes  when  weaker 
hands  than  Ur-Bau’s  controlled  the  city’s  destiny 
there  came  to  rule  a  prince,  Gudea  by  name, 
on  whom  fickle  fortune  and  the  favor  of  the 
gods  rested  as  never  before  since  the  days  of 
Eannatum.  Gudea  excelled  all  his  predecessors 
by  far  in  the  beautifully  executed  records2  of 
his  deeds,  and  his  figure  stands  out  sharp  and 
clear  against  the  dull  shadows  of  ancient  days. 

To  Gudea  the  rule  came  not  by  inheritance, 
for  his  father  is  never  mentioned,  and  in  solemn 
prayers  to  his  gods  he  was  wont  to  say  that  he 
had  neither  father  nor  mother,  but  he  had  no 

1  Date  Forrmilse,  Thureau-Dangin,  Die  Sumerischen  und  Akkadischen 
Konigsinschriften,  pp.  226,  227. 

2  The  inscriptions  of  Gudea,  the  sources  for  his  reign,  fall  natural^ 
into  two  major  and  one  minor  classes,  (a)  Those  upon  statues  of  the 
king  now  number  eleven,  all  assembled,  transliterated,  and  translated  in 
Thureau-Dangin,  Die  Sumerischen  und  Akkadischen  Konigsinschriften, 
pp.  66-89,  with  the  references  to  the  original  publications  of  the  Su¬ 
merian  texts. 

(b)  The  Cylinder  Inscriptions,  two  in  number,  A  and  B,  Thureau- 
Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  88-141.  For  the  original  texts,  in  beautiful  auto¬ 
graph,  see  Price,  The  Great  Cylinder  Inscription  of  Gudea.  Leipzig, 
1899,  ff. 

(c)  The  Brick  Inscriptions,  Cones,  Seals,  and  Maces,  of  which  a 
total  of  twenty-six  are  now  known.  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp. 
140-  147. 


44  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


need  to  support  his  claim  to  rule  by  tables  of 
descent.  He  had  the  higher  claim  of  the  right 
demonstrated  by  the  power  to  rule  both  as 
warrior  and  still  more  as  an  efficient  governor 
of  his  people  in  peace,  and  a  promoter  of  culture 
able  to  lift  his  city  far  beyond  its  contemporaries 
in  social  and  artistic  achievement. 

When  Gudea  came  to  rule  his  city  had  two 
hundred  and  sixteen  thousand  inhabitants,  yet 
no  temple  worthy  of  the  great  god  Ningirsu,  to 
whom  all  these  folk  owed  life  and  all  its  means 
for  comfort  and  content.  Upon  the  people 
thus  dwelling  in  neglect  of  the  proper  order 
and  dignity  of  divine  worship  there  fell  a  great 
drought,  and  the  ruler  was  not  slow  to  per¬ 
ceive  that  this  boded  ill  concerning  the  god’s 
attitude  to  his  people.  Then  in  the  middle  of 
the  night  the  god  Ningirsu  himself  appeared  in 
a  dream,  and  bade  him  build  his  temple.  The 
dream,  like  many  another,  was  obscure  to  the 
dreamer  when  the  sun  arose,  and  he  wended 
then  his  way  to  the  goddess  Nina  to  learn  its 
interpretation  from  her.  He  recounted  in  pas¬ 
sionate  words  all  that  he  had  seen;  the  figure 
of  a  god  whom  he  could  not  recognize  bidding 
him  build  a  temple,  while  another  upon  a  piece 
of  lapis-lazuli  drew  the  outlines  of  the  ground 
form  of  a  sacred  edifice.  Nina  explained  it  all, 
and  the  patesi  turned  with  easier  mind  to 
execute  the  will  of  the  gods. 

When  he  had  purified  the  city  by  burning 


Brick  of  Gudea,  containing  this  Sumerian  inscrip¬ 
tion  : 

1.  (dingir)  Nin-gish-zi(d)-da 
(dingir)-ra-ni 
Gu-de-a 
pa-te-si 

5.  SIR-BXJR-LA  (ki) 
galu  d-ninnu 
(dingir)  Nin-gir-su-ka 
in-du-a 

4  gir-su(ki)-ka-ni 
10.  mu-na-du 

Translation  : 

1.  For  Ningishzida 
his  god, 

Gudea 
patesi 
of  Lagash 
who,  the  temple 
of  Ningirsu 
had  built 

the  temple  in  Girsu 
has  built. 

British  Museum,  No.  90289.  Cuneiform  Texts, 
xxi,  plate  36.  [Reproduced  by  permission  of  the 
Trustees  of  the  British  Museum.] 


44 


)!'  ■  •  T,0-'l  >  ANT) .AS.'-'VMT.A 


his  claim  to  rule  by  tables  of 

-qkoeiti  nehomjjd  sid\  tnoo  ,,a*b  ,h  >  i<  >birc3 

I '  .  '  r  .  :•  fioii 

:&b-  (b)  i^W^isiVL  .  .1 

in-jn-(ii^aiL)  re 

•"  •  X?  ,  -  • ,  » 

1  ,M>(J 

(lyl)AJ-aua-Hia  .c  ,  . 
When  Lu  t  came  To  ruTo  nis  city  had  two 

,  ijfinin-a  ;jue§  ,  . 

'  -vet 

no  temple  worthy  of  the  grep^go^g  Ningirsu,  to 
whom  all  these  ;  j^jy^all  its  means 

comfort  and  cont<  .hb°  people 

thus  dwelling  in  pegun  (  t:  ;-OIT/jiax,jr¥ 

X  c^!  f.bisrf^igrirVr  To'f  .4 

8 ill" 
iBobld.) 


drought,  and  tl 

. 

a"  i  ude  to  his  -  a 


;  u  ,r- 

guds 


the  nig  at  t 

ne  god 

a  dre  uu, 

nd  ba 

a  a ;  v 

dreamer  w 

*  on 

f  hen  his  w 

o  V  1  O  t 

vV  V  vv 

interpret  at 

>n  froi 

ibc^uJ  to 
aixui no J  oil?  <oriw 
■u&i'rgniVL  \o 
ifiud  bad 


.JliUsi  &8il 


o  the 
we  f  ■  ded 
■■  b  arn  its 
d  in  pas- 

,«toT  m-iohamt.')  .R8£00  .oYL  .aujorsuM  ddjntf  , 
oi ft  lo  ariorf  yd  baoubo’xqobl]  jxx 

US 

Oi  .:■)  •  zuli  dr  ’'A  ll.  .  it.-:  A  oi 

1  i  o  a  sac  ed  e  1  >  • 

and  the  pate  i  tui-ied  it m  ear  r  mind  to 

execute, the  will  of  ihe  gods. 

•  \  :  -A  .  b<  ’lad  parted  V.  r  burning 


dull. 


II — 44 


. 


. 


' 


HISTORY  TO  THE  FALL  OF  LARS  A 


45 


fires  of  cedar  and  precious  woods  whose  sweet 
scent  rose  heavenward  to  please  the  gods  with 
its  savor,  and  had  purged  the  place  of  wizards 
and  necromancers,  he  began  an  assembly  of 
materials  such  as  indeed  the  world  had  never 
seen  before.  Again  and  again  does  he  enumer¬ 
ate  distant  lands  as  having  contributed  of  their 
best  to  the  service  of  state  or  worship  in  his 
wonderful  little  city.  From  Magan  (north¬ 
eastern  Arabia)  the  beautiful  hard  diorite 
came  to  be  worked  into  his  royal  statues. 
From  the  land  of  Melukkha  (the  Nubian 
desert  and  south  thereof)  was  brought  ushu- 
wood,  always  precious  and  highly  esteemed 
even  down  to  the  Assyrian  age,  while  Mount 
Khakhu  supplied  dust  of  gold  to  gild  small 
objects  like  ceremonial  mace  heads.  These 
lands  were  not  far  from  his  own,  but  it  is  more 
surprising  to  read  that  he  brought  from  Mount 
Amanus,  in  northwestern  Syria,  great  beams  of 
cedar,  fifty,  nay  even  sixty  cubits  long,  and 
in  the  neighboring  Mount  Basalla  quarried  mas¬ 
sive  stones  to  be  fashioned  into  stelse  and  then 
set  up  in  the  court  of  the  new  temple,  while 
another  western  mountain,  Tidanum  in  Arnurru, 
contributed  marble.  All  these  materials  must 
be  got  out  and  then  transported  overland  to 
the  Euphrates  to  be  rafted  hundreds  of  miles 
to  his  city.  All  these  facts  throw  a  bright 
light  upon  the  civilization  of  his  day.  That 
was  no  ordinary  civilization  which  could  achieve 


46  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

work  requiring  such  skill  and  power  as  the 
quarrying  or  the  cutting  of  these  materials  and 
the  transportation  of  them  over  such  distances. 
A  long  period  for  its  development  must  be 
assumed.  Centuries  only,  and  not  merely  dec¬ 
ades,  would  suffice  as  the  period  of  preparation 
for  such  accomplishments.  But  it  is  also  to 
be  observed  that  the  securing  of  these  materials 
must  have  involved  the  use  of  armed  force. 
The  sturdy  inhabitants  of  the  Amanus  would 
not  probably  3ueld  up  their  timber  without  a 
struggle.  One  little  indication  there  is  of  Gudea’s 
prowess  in  arms,  for  he  conquered  the  district 
of  Anshan,  in  Elam.1  This  single  allusion  to 
conquest  is  instructive,  for  it  was  probably 
only  representative  of  other  conquests  by  the 
same  builder  and  warrior.  But  in  spite  of  this 
inference  the  general  impression  made  by  his 
reign  is  one  of  peace,  of  progress  in  civilization, 
of  splendid  ceremonial  in  the  worship  of  the 
gods,  and  of  the  progress  of  the  art  of  writing. 
As  a  warrior  he  is  not  to  be  compared  with 
Sargon  of  Agade;  as  an  exponent  of  civilization 
he  far  surpasses  him. 

When  the  temple  was  finished  the  city  was 
once  again  ceremonially  purified,  and  then  the 
god  Ningirsu  and  his  spouse  Bau  were  inducted 
into  their  new  home  with  most  elaborate  cere¬ 
monial,  which  the  king  has  described  as  care- 

1  Gudea  B,  col.  vi,  64-66.  Compare  Jensen,  Keilinschrift.  Bill iii, 
part  1,  p.  38,  note  9.  Thureau-Dangin,  pp.  70,  71. 


HISTORY  TO  THE  FALL  OF  LARSA 


47 


fully1  as  he  did  the  labors  of  construction. 
By  the  side  of  Ningirsu  and  Bau  all  the  minor 
deities  took  their  ordered  places,  each  with 
some  special  function  in  the  divine  court.  Here 
were  Uri-zi,  the  keeper  of  the  god’s  harem; 
Ensignun,  the  herder  of  his  asses;  Enlulim,  who 
watched  his  goats;  Lugal-igi-hush-am,  the  pre¬ 
centor,  whose  solemn  song  and  chant  should 
please  him,  and  even  the  seven  maidens  who 
were  to  surround  Bau.  Indeed  the  god’s  en¬ 
tourage  was  like  the  king’s  own;  he  ruled  in 
the  heavenly  places,  while  Gudea  represented 
him  on  earth,  and  right  royally  had  the  earthly 
vicegerent  honored  the  heavenly  king,  and  great 
heed  did  he  take  that  men  should  not  forget 
who  had  done  all  these  things. 

In  the  temple  court  Gudea  set  up  again  a 
stele  of  Lugal-kisalsi2  which  he  had  found  when 
the  excavations  were  in  progress,  and  so  united 
his  greater  labors  to  the  smaller  of  the  past. 
But  if  there  were  one  stele  of  an  earlier  patesi, 
there  were  three  statues  of  Gudea  himself. 
One  of  these  has  upon  the  knees  of  the  seated 
king  an  architect’s  ground  plan  of  the  temple. 
Artistically  these  represent  a  great  advance 
over  the  work  of  any  of  his  predecessors.  The 
head  has  been  technically  mastered,  has  the 
unmistakable  marks  of  portrait  quality,  and 
indicates  clearly  enough  the  influence  of  Se- 


1  Cylinder  B,  col.  5,  lines  1,  If. 

2See  above,  p.  10. 


48  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

mitic  craftsmanship.  The  rest  of  the  body  is, 
however,  still  crude,  heavy,  ill-proportioned. 
There  is  scarcely  any  neck,  the  head  being  set 
solid  on  the  heavy  shoulders,  and  the  too 
heavily  muscled  arms  not  parted  from  the 
stunted  body. 

It  were  interesting  indeed,  if  we  could  but 
know  more  of  the  life  of  a  creative  spirit  like 
Gudea,  but  there  seems  small  hope  of  it.  We 
do  not  even  know  how  far  his  personal  rule 
may  have  extended,  nor  how  much  he  may 
have  owed  of  dependence  to  other  rulers.  He 
boasts  justly  of  his  gathering  of  materials,  as 
we  have  seen,  but  he  gives  no  hint  of  any  rule 
over  any  of  these  vast  territories. 

In  him,  at  any  rate,  the  civilization  of  the 
Sumerians  culminated.  He  is  the  high  priest  of 
their  cultus,  the  finest  flower  of  their  life,  and 
in  his  inscriptions  their  language  reached  the 
culminating  point  of  its  literary  development. 
Before  his  day  kings  and  patesis  wrote  little 
votive  inscriptions  in  cold  and  disconnected 
words,  while  his  long  texts  are  full  of  life  and 
vigor  and  fire. 

From  Lagash  the  power  passed  to  Ur,1  a 
city  admirably  situated  to  achieve  commercial 
and  historical  importance.  The  river  Euphrates 

1  The  ruins  of  Ur,  now  called  Mugheir,  have  long  been  known.  They 
were  first  explored  by  Taylor  and  Loftus.  See  above,  I,  p.  203.  The 
early  references  to  Ur  and  its  commerce  have  been  collected  by  Hom- 
mel  (Die  Semitischen  Volker  u.  Sprachen,  pp.  204-211,  and  Geschichte, 
pp.  212-218,  325-329). 


HISTORY  TO  THE  FALL  OF  LARSA  49 

flowed  just  past  its  gates,  affording  easy  trans¬ 
portation  for  stone  and  wood  from  its  upper 
waters,  to  which  the  Lebanon,  rich  in  cedars, 
and  the  Amanus  were  readily  accessible.  The 
wady  Rummein  came  close  to  the  city  and 
linked  it  with  central  and  southern  Arabia,  and 
along  that  road  came  gold  and  precious  stones, 
and  gums  and  perfumes  to  be  converted  into 
incense  for  temple  worship.  Another  road  went 
across  the  very  desert  itself,  and,  provided  with 
wells  of  water,  conducted  trade  to  southern 
Syria,  the  Peninsula  of  Sinai,  and  across  into 
Africa.  This  was  the  shortest  road  to  Africa, 
and  commerce  between  Ur  and  Egypt  passed 
over  its  more  difficult  but  much  shorter  route 
than  the  one  by  way  of  liar  an  and  Palestine. 
Nearly  opposite  the  city  the  Shatt-el-Hai 
emptied  into  the  Euphrates,  and  so  afforded 
a  passage  for  boats  into  the  Tigris,  thus  opening 
to  the  commerce  of  Ur  the  vast  country  tribu¬ 
tary  to  that  river.  Here,  then,  were  roads  and 
rivers  leading  to  the  north,  east,  and  west,  but 
there  was  also  a  great  outlet  to  the  southward. 
The  Euphrates  made  access  to  the  Persian 
Gulf  easy.  No  city  lay  south  of  Ur  on  that 
river  except  Eridu,  and  Eridu  was  no  compet¬ 
itor  in  the  world  of  commerce,  for  it  was  devoted 
only  to  temples  and  gods — a  city  given  up  to 
religion. 

In  a  city  so  favorably  located  as  Ur  the 
development  of  political  as  well  as  commercial 


50  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


superiority  seems  perfectly  natural.  Even  be¬ 
fore  the  days  of  Sargon  the  city  of  Ur  had  an 
existence  and  a  government  of  its  own.  To 
that  early  period  belong  the  rudely  written 
vases  of  serpentine  and  of  stalagmite  which  bear 
the  name  and  titles  of  Lugal-kigub-nidudu1 
(about  3000  B.  C.),  king  of  Erech,  king  of  Ur. 
We  know  nothing  of  his  work  in  the  upbuilding 
of  the  city,  nor  of  that  of  his  son  and  successor, 
Lugal-kisalsi.  They  are  but  empty  names  until 
further  discovery  shall  add  to  the  store  of 
their  inscribed  remains.  After  their  work  was 
done  the  city  of  Ur  was  absorbed  now  into  one 
and  now  into  another  of  the  kingdoms,  both 
small  and  great,  which  held  sway  over  southern 
Babylonia. 

About  2500  B.  C.  the  city  of  Ur  again  seized 
a  commanding  position  through  the  efforts 
especially  of  two  kings,  Ur-Engur  (2477-2459) 
and  Dungi  (2459-2401  B.  C.). 

The  former  became  the  founder  of  a  new 
dynasty  and  has  left  many  evidences  of  his 
power  as  well  in  brief  inscriptions2  as  in  build¬ 
ings.  He  began  to  reign  in  Ur  about  2477  B.  C., 
and  remained  in  authority  for  eighteen  years. 
When  he  came  to  rule  Gudea’s  son  Ur-Ningirsu 

1  Published  by  Hilprecht,  Old  Babylonian  Inscriptions ,  vol.  i,  part  ii, 
No.  86.  Compare  Thureau-Dangin,  Die  Sumerischen  und  Akkadischen 
Konigsinschriften,  pp.  156,  157. 

2  The  texts  of  Ur-Engur,  nearly  all  upon  clay  either  as  building  brick 
stamps,  or  small  cones,  are  assembled  in  transliteration  and  transla¬ 
tion  in  Thureau-Dangin,  Die  Sumerischen  und  Akkadischen  Konigsin¬ 
schriften,  pp.  186-189. 


HISTORY  TO  THE  FALL  OF  LARSA 


51 


was  patesi  of  Lagash,  and  from  him  there  still 
remain  a  few  little  bricks1  stamped  with  his 
name  and  style,  sorry  witnesses  to  the  great 
change  since  his  father's  day  of  great  deeds. 
Whatever  autonomy  Gudea  had  enjoyed  is  now 
gone,  for  very  shortly  is  Ur-Ningirsu  deprived 
of  his  political  authority  and  Ur-abba  is  set  up 
in  his  stead,  and  presumably  by  Ur-Engur, 
though  Ur-Ningirsu  still  lived  and  in  Dungi's 
reign  even  dedicated  as  a  votive  offering  a  wig 
and  head  dress  bearing  his  name.2  Ur-Engur 
and  Dungi  have  indeed  become  the  founders 
of  a  new  empire,  and  Lagash  was  early  swept 
into  it.  Probably  before  Lagash  was  thus  hum¬ 
bled  Erech  had  felt  the  heavy  hand  of  a  new 
conqueror,  for  on  one  of  his  little  brick  stamps 
before  the  proud  title  “king  of  Ur"  he  bears 
the  words,  “lord  of  Erech,"  and  to  them  both 
adds  the  general  and  commanding  style  King 
of  Sumer  and  Accad,  never  borne  by  any  king 
before  his  day.  In  this  were  united  the  ancient 
southland  of  Sumer,  which  belonged  by  right  of 
long  occupation  to  the  Sumerians,  but  in  it 
also  was  Accad,  the  land  which  had  been  won 
by  the  Semites  under  Sargon,  and  had  now 
come  again  under  the  rule  of  Sumerians.  Here 
indeed  was  a  reaction  against  the  Semitic  in¬ 
vasion,  a  renaissance  of  Sumerian  power. 

All  over  this  kingdom  which  he  had  thus 

1  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  146-149. 

2  British  Museum  No.  91,075.  See  King,  Sumer  and  Akkad,  p.  275. 
Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  194,  195. 


52  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


formed  did  Ur-Engur  build  great  structures  for 
protection,  for  civil  use,  or  for  the  worship  of 
the  gods.  In  his  own  chief  city  of  Ur  he  built 
the  great  temple  to  the  moon  god;  in  the  city 
of  Erech  he  erected  a  temple  to  the  goddess 
Nina.  At  Larsa  also  there  are  found  unmis¬ 
takable  evidences  that  it  was  he  who  built  there 
the  shrine  of  the  sun  god.1  In  Lagash  he  erected 
a  temple  to  Enlil,  and  dug  a  canal,  intended  not 
only  to  supply  water  but  also  to  serve  as  a 
boundary.2 

When  these  cities  are  dug  up  in  a  systematic 
fashion  we  shall  be  able  to  obtain  some  con¬ 
ception  of  his  activity  in  this  matter.  At 
present  we  are  able  to  form  a  more  complete 
picture  of  his  works  in  Nippur  than  in  Ur.  In 
Nippur  he  built  a  great  zikurat,  or  pyramidal 
tower,  whose  base  was  a  “right-angled  parallelo¬ 
gram  nearly  fifty-nine  meters  long  and  thirty- 
nine  meters  wide.  Its  two  longest  sides  faced 
northwest  and  southeast  respectively,  and  the 
four  corners  pointed  approximately  to  the  four 
cardinal  points.  Three  of  these  stages  have 
been  traced  and  exposed.  It  is  scarcely  possible 
that  formerly  other  stages  existed  above.  The 
lowest  story  was  about  six  and  a  third  meters 
high,  while  the  second  (receding  a  little  over 
four  meters  from  the  edge  of  the  former)  and 
the  third  are  so  utterly  ruined  that  the  original 


1  Brick  E,  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  186,  187. 

2  Cone  B,  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  188,  189. 


HISTORY  TO  THE  FALL  OE  LARSA 


53 


dimensions  can  no  more  be  given.  The  whole 
zikurat  appears  like  an  immense  altar. ,n  The 
defensive  walls  of  Ur1 2  were  also  built  by  Ur- 
Engur,  who  seemed  to  be  building  for  all  time. 
Of  his  wars  and  conquests  we  hear  no  word, 
but,  as  lias  been  said  before  in  a  similar  instance, 
it  is  not  probable  that  his  reign  was  thus  peace¬ 
ful.  It  was  probably  built  by  the  sword,  and 
to  the  sword  must  be  the  appeal  perhaps  in 
frequent  instances. 

Ur-Engur  was  succeeded  by  his  son  Dungi 
(2459-2401  B.  C.),  from  whose  times  there  have 
come  even  greater  written  memorials  of  his 
reign  than  from  his  father.3  In  his  reign  we 
know  not  merely  of  his  buildings,  but  also  have 
the  dates  of  his  numerous  campaigns,  which 
enables  us,  even  without  the  colorful  detail  of 
real  historical  narrative  such  as  the  Assyrian 
would  later  produce,  to  follow  in  outline  the 
progress  of  dominion  as  well  as  of  culture. 
Many  campaigns  must  indeed  have  been  left 
without  mention,  as  the  years  were  prevailingly 
named  because  of  some  religious  act  or  event, 
and  it  was  not  deemed  possible  or  appropriate 
to  designate  a  year  by  a  double  name,  the  one 
military,  the  other  religious.4  In  some  cases, 

1  Hilprecht,  Old  Bab.  Ins.,  vol.  i,  part  ii,  pp.  17,  18. 

2  Brick  B,  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  18G,  187. 

3  They  are  conveniently  assembled  for  historical  purposes  in  trans¬ 
literation  and  translation,  with  ample  references  to  the  original  texts, 
by  Thureau-Dangin,  Die  Sumerischen  und  Akkadischen  Konigsinschriften, 
pp.  190-197,  and  the  date  lists  of  the  reign,  ibid.,  pp.  229-232, 

4  For  this  naming  of  the  years,  see  above,  p.  475. 


54  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


however,  the  mention  of  a  religious  event  in 
a  distant  city  shows  that  Dungi  had  political 
power  over  it,  which  must  have  been  secured 
by  a  previous  campaign.  Thus  when  the  date 
formula  for  the  king’s  seventh  year  tells  that 
he  installed  the  goddess  Kadi  in  her  temple  at 
Der  we  must  assume  that  Der  had  already 
fallen,  into  the  great  king’s  hands  before  that 
time  either  by  surrender  under  threat,  or  by 
direct  attack.  Indeed  we  shall  probably  not 
be  far  astray  if  we  venture  to  conjecture  that 
his  earlier  years  were  well  filled  with  conquest. 
The  most  momentous  of  his  campaigns,  the 
successful  and  desolating  raid  upon  Babylon,  is 
known  only  from  the  Chronicle,1  and  finds  no 
mention  in  the  date  lists,  yet  the  former  records 
that  “the  treasure  of  E-sagila  and  of  Babylon 
he  brought  out  as  spoil.”  There  could  be  no 
greater  or  more  startling  proof  of  the  new  life 
of  the  Sumerians.  Babylon  had  become  a 
Semitic  city,  and  its  E-sagila  was  already  the 
chief  sanctuary  of  the  Semitic  people  in  the 
land  of  Accad.  So  great  was  the  shock  to 
Semitic  sensibilities  that  when  other  deeds  of 
Dungi  were  quite  forgotten  the  memory  of 
this  lived  on  to  be  set  down  by  a  later  Chronicler. 
He  knew  also  what  it  meant  in  respect  of  Su¬ 
merian  partiality,  for  he  had  just  recorded  that 
“Dungi,  son  of  Ur-Engur,  cared  greatly  for  the 
city  of  Eridu,  which  was  on  the  shore  of  the 


1  King,  Chronicles  concerning  Early  Babylonian  Kings,  p.  11. 


HISTORY  TO  THE  FALL  OF  LARSA 


sea.”  But  Sumerian  though  he  was,  Dungi 
yet  knew  how  to  pay  sufficient  heed  to  his 
Semitic  subjects.  He  built,  or  rather  rebuilt, 
the  temple  of  Nergal  in  Cutha,  and  wrote  the 
record  in  the  Semitic  Babylonian  tongue,  though 
all  other  documents  of  his  long  reign,  with  one 
insignificant  exception,  are  in  Sumerian. 

Year  by  year  the  simple  records  or  date  lists 
bear  witness  to  the  onward  sweep  of  wider 
dominion.  In  the  eighth  year  the  god  Nutug- 
mushda  was  installed  in  his  temple  in  Kazallu, 
But  Kazallu  had  been  a  part  of  the  empire  of 
Sargon,  and  was  now  clearly  enough  once  more 
in  Sumerian  hands.  Two  years  later  Nannar 
was  carried  into  his  temple  in  Nippur  which 
also  thus  acknowledges  the  king  of  Ur  as  its  ruler. 

Several  years  pass  with  no  word  of  battle 
and  arms,  when  in  the  fourteenth  year  we  are 
startled  by  the  simple  announcement  that  the 
king’s  daughter  was  set  up  as  “lady”  in  Mark- 
hashi,  a  district  of  Elam.  Here  Sargon  had 
rule  hundreds  of  years  ago,  but  now  Elam  is 
likewise  falling  back  into  Sumerian  hands,  and 
among  these,  woman  already  enjoys  the  power 
to  rule. 

Two  years  later  Dungi  proved  his  ability  to 
learn  from  the  Semites  as  he  organized  the 
people  of  Ur  as  archers,  teaching  them  to  use 
a  weapon  hitherto  characteristic  especially  of 
the  Semites.  The  Sumerian  typical  weapon,  as 
numerous  battle  scenes  show,  was  the  battle 


56  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


axe,  and  the  normal  tactics  were  those  of  hand- 
to-hand  shock.  These  were  likely  to  continue, 
for  there  is  no  greater  conservative  in  civilized 
society  than  the  soldier;  not  even  the  teacher 
or  the  priest  holding  more  tenaciously  to  old 
practice.  But  the  nomad  Semite  had  taught 
his  city  brother  how  useful  a  blow  might  be 
struck  by  flying  arrows  before  the  troops  were 
face  to  face,  and  the  Sumerians  had  now  grasped 
this  new  weapon  of  offense.  With  it  Dungi 
was  the  better  prepared  for  the  invasion  of  the 
mountainous  country  of  Elam. 

In  the  twenty-second  year  Gankhar  in  Elam 
was  conquered,  and  Simuru  fell  in  the  next 
year,  but  rose  and  had  to  be  attacked  again 
in  the  twenty-fourth,  and  yet  again  in  the 
thirtieth  and  thirty-first  years.  The  king  had 
clearly  a  heavy  task  in  Elam,  for  in  his  forty- 
second  year  “Simurru  and  Lulubu  were  con¬ 
quered  for  the  ninth  time,”  and  campaigns 
were  yet  to  follow  even  to  the  very  last  year 
of  the  king’s  reign.  Elsewhere  in  Elam  success 
would  appear  to  have  been  easier,  for  Dungi 
is  able  to  record  in  his  twenty-eighth  year  that 
his  daughter  was  married  to  the  Patesi  of 
Anshan.  Anshan  was  now  only  an  easterly 
province  of  Elam,  destined  centuries  later  to 
spring  to  sudden  fame  when  its  king,  Cyrus,  set 
out  thence  to  conquer  the  world.  But  even 
now  the  peace  with  Anshan  was  but  temporary, 
for  in  four  years  Dungi  felt  called  upon  to  in- 


HISTORY  TO  THE  FALL  OF  LARSA 


57 


vade  it,  while  we  wonder  whether  his  own 
daughter  had  perished  in  the  rebellion  against 
her  father’s  rule,  or,  as  has  often  happened,  had 
embraced  her  husband’s  people  in  a  new  loyalty 
and  helped  against  her  old  home-land. 

But  in  spite  of  all  these  reverses  at  times, 
the  empire  of  Dungi  grew  apace  and  he  made 
bold  to  adopt  the  proud  title  of  the  empire  of 
Accad  and  called  himself  “king  of  the  four 
quarters  of  the  world”  in  a  Semitic  inscription 
at  Cutha,  already  mentioned,  but  also,  and 
probably  afterward,  turning  the  sonorous  Se¬ 
mitic  phrase  over  into  the  quaint  and  curious 
Sumerian,  and  adding  this  style  even  in  Sumerian 
texts  to  the  current  and  common  style,  “king 
of  Ur,  king  of  Sumer  and  Accad.”1  Even 
farther  than  this  did  he  go,  for  he  imitated  the 
Semite  Naram-Sin  in  causing  himself  to  be 
deified  and  worshiped  as  “Dungi,  god  of  his 
land,  king  of  Ur,  king  of  the  four  quarters  of 
the  world.”2  To  celebrate  these  divine  honors, 
a  new  monthly  festival  was  established  and  the 
seventh  month  of  the  year  re-named  “the  month 
of  the  Feast  of  Dungi.”3 

Where  Dungi  conquered  there  he  ruled,  and 
the  small  business  tablets  bearing  dates  in  his 
reign  are  witness  to  the  development  of  business 

1  So,  for  example,  in  the  weight  inscriptions  A  and  B,  Thureau-Dangin, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  194,  195. 

2  See  the  text,  which  by  the  way,  does  not  use  the  style  “king  of 
Sumer  and  Accad,”  and  was  found  at  Susa,  in  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit., 
pp.  194,  195. 

3  See  above,  vol.  i,  p.  405. 


58  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


life  and  especially  of  commerce,  in  the  various 
parts  of  his  empire.  Numbers  of  these  com¬ 
mercial  documents  of  Dungi ’s  reign  have  been 
unearthed  at  Lagash,  and  if  even  the  vaster 
mound  of  Ur  were  to  give  up  its  stores,  it  were 
difficult  to  imagine  the  light  that  would  thus 
be  shed  upon  his  reign.  What  we  have  learned 
would  seem  to  indicate  that  Lagash  was  now 
but  a  stopping  place  for  messengers  of  many 
kinds  on  their  way  to  or  from  Ur  and  the 
provinces  of  Elam.  There  they  stopped  to  rest 
and  there  they  were  provisioned  for  their  further 
journey,  the  tablets  enumerating  the  measures 
of  oil  or  of  strong  drink  or  of  grain  which  they 
received.  Dungi  was  indeed  ruling  Elam,  at 
the  same  time  that  he  administered  his  own 
kingdom  of  Sumer  and  Accad,  even  prescribing 
standards  of  weights  and  doubtless  also  of 
measures,  as  we  are  reminded  by  weights 
stamped  with  his  name  and  titles  and  bearing 
the  legend  “a  half  mina,”  “two  minas,”  “twelve 
minas,”1  the  first  two  being  stamped  as  of  “full 
weight/’  showing  that  they  had  been  compared 
with  a  royal  standard. 

Great  as  was  Dungi  in  the  roles  of  conqueror 
and  administrator  he  was  perhaps  yet  greater 
as  a  builder  and  as  a  lavish  patron  of  the  cult  us. 
He  built  temples  in  Ur  to  Nannar  and  to  Innina; 
in  Lagash  to  Ningirsu;  in  Nippur  to  Enki  and 
to  Damgalnunna.  Thence  he  went  out  of  Sumer 


1  See  the  three  weights  A,  B,  C.  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  194,  195. 


59 


HISTORY  TO  THE  FALL  OF  LARSA 

into  Accad  and  built  in  Cutha  for  the  worship 
of  the  Semites,  nay  more  remarkable  still,  he 
even  built  in  Susa  a  shrine  for  the  Elamite  god 
Shushinak. 

For  fifty-eight  years  he  reigned  in  such  power 
and  riches  and  amid  so  much  civilization  as 
the  Sumerians  had  never  known  before,  until 
mother  earth  claimed  his  dust  back  again  to 
her  bosom.  Many  centuries  later  he  was  so 
well  known  that  a  Semitic  chronicler  in  the 
Neo-Babylonian  period  was  at  pains  to  declare 
that  the  god  Marduk  had  destroyed  him,  be¬ 
cause  of  his  ill  treatment  of  Babylon.1  We  have 
no  historical  confirmation  of  any  disaster  to 
Dungi,  and  he  vanishes  peacefully  out  of 
our  sight. 

The  rule  over  the  empire  which  Dungi  had 
reestablished  for  the  honor  and  dignity  of  the 
Sumerian  people  passed  without  question  or 
rebellion  to  his  son  Bur-Sin  I  (2401-2392  B.  C.). 
His  reign  was  very  short  and  as  his  father’s 
was  unusually  long  it  is  a  natural  inference  that 
he  came  late  in  life  to  rule.  He  was  able  to 
hold,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  all  that  his  father 
had  won.  The  date  lists  of  his  reign  have  come 
to  us  in  complete  form  for  every  one  of  the  nine 
years  of  his  reign.2  These  make  mention  of 
three  campaigns,  all  into  Elam  or  its  provinces, 

1  Chronicle  of  Sargon,  etc.  British  Museum  No.  26,472.  King, 
Chronicles,  p.  11. 

2  For  the  date  lists  see  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  233,  234,  and 
for  the  other  texts  of  the  king,  ih.,  pp.  196-200. 


60  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSlrRIA 

and  prove  that  the  heavy  hand  was  necessary 
to  keep  there  what  Dungi  had  so  laboriously 
secured.  For  the  rest,  the  only  significant 
features  of  his  reign  were  that  he  wrote  only 
in  Sumerian  and  that  he  sets  down  after  his 
name  the  words:  “whose  name  Ellil  hath  pro¬ 
nounced  in  Nippur,  who  exalted  the  head  of 
ElliPs  temple/’  followed  by  the  usual  titles: 
“King  of  Ur,  king  of  the  four  quarters  of  the 
world.”  This  would  indicate  that  Nippur  was 
once  again  esteemed  as  the  seat  of  the  deepest 
religious  faith  and  hope,  the  chief  sanctuary  of 
all  Babylonia,  yet  Nanner,  the  ancient  god  of 
Ur,  was  not  forgotten,  but  rather  a  new  temple 
was  erected  for  him,1  and  Bur-Sin  also  pro¬ 
claimed  his  own  deification,  calling  himself  “the 
righteous  god,  the  sun  of  his  land.”2 

The  next  king,  Gimil-Sin,  son  of  Bur-Sin  I, 
had  also  a  short  reign  of  nine  years  (2491-2482 
B.  C.),  which  was  also  comparatively  unevent¬ 
ful.  In  his  third  year  and  again  in  his  seventh 
he  made  campaigns  of  conquest  or  reduction, 
but  passed  the  remaining  years  in  honoring 
the  gods,  of  whom  Ellil  of  Nippur  would  appear 
to  have  held  ’the  first  place,  though  Nannar  was 
not  forgotten,  and  An  unit  received  her  share 
of  royal  praise.  One  of  his  inscriptions  is 
written  in  Semitic3  upon  a  gate  socket  and  may 

1  Stone  tablet  B,  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  200,  201. 

2  Brick  tablet  E,  lines  10,  11,  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  198,  199. 

3  British  Museum  No.  90,844,  Cuneiform  Texts,  xxi,  plate  28,  Thureau- 
Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  200,  201. 


HISTORY  TO  THE  FALL  OF  LARSA 


61 


serve  to  show  that  during  the  whole  Sumerian 
reaction  the  Semitic  language  continued  to  be 
used  in  Sumer,  abiding  the  day  of  restoration. 

When  Gimil-Sin  had  ceased  to  rule,  his  son 
Ibi-Sin  (2482-2457  B.  C.)  held  the  scepter  of 
a  tottering  dynasty  for  twenty-five  years,  of 
which  there  was  little  to  record.1  He  made  at 
least  one  campaign,  and  this  against  the  ever 
difficult  land  of  Elam,  attacking  Simurru,  per¬ 
haps  in  a  last  desperate  effort  to  retain  a  hold 
upon  it.  But  the  day  for  a  change  was  dawn¬ 
ing.  Elam  was  now  wholly  Semitized  and  the 
new  race  was  stronger  than  the  old,  and  cer¬ 
tain  in  due  time  to  cast  off  the  yoke  of  Sumerian 
rule,  even  if  it  did  not  go  farther,  and  conquer 
Sumer  itself.  The  issue  of  the  long  struggle 
came  at  last  when  Ibi-Sin  paid  the  final  score, 
and  was  himself  carried  away  into  captivity 
into  Anshan,  by  the  Elamites  who  had  now 
for  more  than  a  century  been  the  subjects  of 
this  dynasty.2  With  Ibi-Sin  the  dynasty  which 
Ur-Engur  founded  passed  from  Ur  to  Isin, 
though  how  the  scepter  of  Sumerian  rule  was 
transferred  thither,  we  have  not  learned. 

This  dynasty  of  Ur  had  made  indeed  a  deep 
impression  upon  the  world  of  its  day.  It  was 
a  great  achievement  to  wrest  the  power  for  so 

1  Only  two  small  texts  and  three  dates  have  so  far  been  recovered. 
Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  202,  203,  234-236. 

2  The  fact  is  known  only  from  a  late  Omen  Tablet.  See  Boissier, 
Choix  de  textes  relatifs  a  la  divination,  ii,  p.  64.  Meissner,  Oriental- 
istische  Literal  urzeituiig,  March,  1007,  col.  114,  note  1. 


62  HISTORY  OP  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


long  from  the  advancing  Semitic  race,  and  to 
set  forward  once  more  the  old  Sumerian  culture. 
Yet  the  Sumerian  culture  was  no  longer  pure. 
It  was  mixed  with  the  new  element,  and  as  we 
have  seen,  more  than  one  of  these  kings  even 
had  inscriptions  written  in  the  Accadian  or 
Semitic  Babylonian  tongue.  But  Semitic  in¬ 
fluence  went  much  further  than  this.  Semites 
filled  the  highest  offices  of  the  state.  The  most 
striking  illustration  of  this  is  Arad-Nannar, 
whose  name  first  becomes  known  in  the  ninth 
year  of  Bur-Sin  I,  reaching  the  summit  of 
dignity  and  power  in  the  eighth  year  of  Gimil- 
Sin,  when  his  name  comes  into  the  fuller  form 
of  the  annual  date  formula,  but  who  lived  on 
into  the  reign  of  Ibi-Sin.  So  great  was  he  in 
all  the  realm  that  he  had  a  gate  socket  at 
Lagash1  written  in  his  own  name  and  dedicated 
to  Gimil-Sin,  enumerating  upon  it  no  less  than 
twelve  high  posts  which  he  was  then  holding, 
such  as  Chief  Minister  of  the  King,  Patesi  of 
Lagash,  Priest  of  Enki,  Governor  of  Uzargar- 
shana  and  of  yet  other  cities  or  lands,  some  of 
them  in  distant  Elam. 

When  the  Elamites  had  destroyed  the  dynasty 
of  Ur,  they  were  not  able,  or  did  not  attempt, 
to  establish  rule  in  Babylonia,  and  the  King 
of  Isin,  Ishbi-Ura  (2358-2326  B.  C.)  was  strong 
enough  to  seize  the  kingdom  of  Sumer  and 

1  Thureau-Dangin,  Die  Sumerischen  und  Akkadischen  Konigsin- 
schriften,  pp.  148-151. 


HISTORY  TO  THE  PALL  OF  LARSA 


63 


Akkad,  take  over  what  was  left  by  the  Elamites 
in  the  old  territory  of  Ur  and  found  a  new 
dynasty.  Little  is  yet  known  of  the  fifteen  kings 
who  ruled  after  him,  filling  out  with  his  reign  a 
total  of  two  hundred  and  twenty-five  years  and 
six  months.  Their  names  are,  for  the  greater  part, 
Semitic,  yet  the  few  historical  inscriptions  which 
have  come  to  us  from  them  are  in  Sumerian, 
though  with  Semitic  words  now  and  again. 

Ishbi-ura  was  renowned,  so  a  late  omen  tablet 
of  the  Assyrian  period  declares,1  as  a  man  “who 
had  no  rivals/ ’  and  his  long  reign  of  thirty-two 
years  would  appear  to  lend  support  to  this, 
as  does  also  the  fact  that  he  was  able  to  hand 
on  the  authority  to  his  own  son  Gimil-ilishu 
(2326-2316  B.  C.).  In  the  next  reign,  Idin- 
Dagan  (2316-2295  B.  C.),  the  royal  house  was 
still  'in  possession  of  rule  over  Sippar,  as  a 
fragment2  there  found  bears  witness,  and  Ishme- 
Dagan  (2295-2275  B.  C.),  his  successor,  is  able 
to  boast  of  his  care  of  Nippur,  Ur,  and  Eridu, 
and  to  wear  the  titles,  “Lord  of  Erech,  the 
mighty  king,  King  of  Isin,  King  of  Sumer  and 
Accad,”3  and  to  add  to  these  the  claim  that 
he  was  the  “beloved  spouse”  of  Innina,  thus 
deifying  himself  as  did  the  kings  of  Ur. 

The  reign  of  Libit  Ishtar  (2275-2264  B.  C.), 

1  Boissier,  Divination,  i,  p.  30.  Compare  also  Meissner,  Oriental- 
istische  Literatur-Zeituny,  1907,  col.  114,  note  1. 

2  Scheil,  Recueil  de  travaux,  xvi,  pp.  187,  If.,  compare  Radau,  Early 
Babylonian  History,  pp.  232,  f. 

3  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  206,  207. 


G4  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


his  son,  ended  in  a  change  of  considerable  though 
temporary  consequence.  His  brother  Enanna- 
tum,  who  had  been  appointed  High  Priest  of 
Nannar  at  Ur,  yielded  to  a  new  force  which  had 
arisen  in  Larsa,  and  forsook  his  reigning  brother. 
Larsa  had  a  prince  of  the  name  Gungunu  who 
had  so  strengthened  himself  as  to  be  called  in 
his  own  inscription1  “King  of  Larsa,  King  of 
Sumer  and  Akkad,”  and  for  him  Enannatum 
had  built  a  temple  to  the  sun  God  at  Ur,  in 
which  Gungunu  is  styled  King  of  Ur.2  Whether 
Gungunu  had  taken  Ur  by  force  and  so  dis¬ 
membered  Libit  Ishtar’s  kingdom  we  do  not 
know,  but  he  has  clearly  assumed  its  rule,  though 
he  seems  not  to  have  had  any  real  power  in  the 
north,  and  his  claim  to  rule  Sumer  and  Accad 
was  both  shadowy  and  brief. 

When  Libit  Ishtar  was  dead  the  house  of 
Ishbi-ura  ceased  and  the  next  king,  Ur-Ninib 
(2264-2236  B.  C.),  of  unknown  origin  and 
relationship,  acknowledges  no  interference  any¬ 
where  with  his  complete  rule  over  all  the  land 
both  north  and  south,  calling  himself  “the 
exalted  shepherd  of  Nippur,  shepherd  of  Ur, 
who  delivers  the  decisions  of  Eridu,  the  gracious 
lord  of  Erecli,  king  of  Isin,  king  of  Sumer  and 
Accad,  the  chosen  spouse  of  Innina.”3  Gungunu 

1  Brick  a,  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  206,  207. 

2  Cone,  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  206,  207. 

3  Brick  from  Nippur,  iv  R,  35,  No.  5,  second  edition.  Hilprecht, 
Old  Babylonian,  Inscriptions,  i,  27.  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp. 
204,  205. 


HISTORY  TO  THE  FALL  OF  LARSA  05 

has  vanished  as  suddenly  as  he  came,  leaving 
behind  only  a  memory  and  the  formula  upon 
a  date  list:  “the  year  in  which  Gungunu  died.”1 

We  know  nothing  worthy  of  note  of  the 
next  two  kings,  Bur-Sin  II  (2236-2215  B.  C.) 
and  Iter-kasha  (2215-2210  B.  C.),  and  of  their 
successor,  Ura-imitti  (2210-2203  B.  C.),  only 
the  statement  of  a  late  Babylonian  Chronicle 
that  “he  set  Ellil-bani  the  gardener  upon  his 
throne  [that  the  dynasty  might  not  come  to  an 
end],  and  the  crown  of  his  sovereignty  he  placed 
upon  his  head.”2  This  pious  provision  for  a 
gardener  king,  who  might  well  have  furthered 
peace  better  than  a  warrior-king,  was  not  im¬ 
mediately  successful,  for  Sin-ikisha  claimed  the 
unstable  throne  for  six  months  before  Ellil- 
bani  came  to  his  own,  and  enjoyed  a  long  reign 
of  twenty-four  years  (2203-2179  B.  C.),  but  did 
not  form  a  dynastic  line.  The  next  three  kings 
had  short  reigns,  a  fairly  clear  indication  of 
troublous  times,  the  occasion  of  which  we  are 
soon  to  hear,  and  these  were  followed  by  Sin- 
magir  (2167-2156  B.  C.)  and  Damik-ilishu 
(2156-2133  B.  C.),  whose  longer  reigns  indicate 
better  days.  The  former  indeed  dedicated  at 
Babylon,  in  the  temple  of  Epatutila,  a  clay 
object  of  mushroom  shape  bearing  the  legend: 

1  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  p.  236.  On  this  formula  King  ( Sumer  and 
Akkad ,  p.  311,  note  4)  observes:  “Since  the  death  of  a  king  from  natural 
causes  was  never  commemorated  in  this  fashion,  we  may  conclude 
that  he  was  slain  in  battle,  probably  by  Ur-Ninib.” 

2  King,  Chronicles ,  ii,  pp.  15,  16. 


66  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


“Sin-magir  the  shepherd  who  adorns  [the 
temple]  of  Ellil,  the  mighty  king,  king  of  Isin, 
king  of  Sumer  and  Accad,”1  so  that  he  was 
exercising  at  this  time  some  sort  of  suzerainty 
over  Babylon,  and  had  therefore  a  just  claim 
to  call  himself  King  of  Sumer  and  Accad,  while 
Damik-ilishu  surely  bore  rule  also  in  the  same 
land,  for  he  built  the  temple  of  E-ditar-kalama 
in  the  same  city.2  But  this  dominance  was  at 
its  end  in  his  reign.  The  First  Dynasty  of 
Babylon  had  been  increasing  in  power,  and  just 
before  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Sin-muballit 
(about  2133  B.  C.)  Damik-ilishu  ceased  to 
reign,  and  the  Semitic  king  of  Babylon  extended 
his  sway  also  over  Isin,  having  taken  its  capital 
city.3 

The  later  reigns  of  this  dynasty,  especially 
the  reigns  before  these  last  two,  were  sorely 
disturbed,  and  it  is  not  surprising  that  we  find 
it  very  difficult  to  understand  the  exact  order 
of  events.  We  can  but  place  before  our  minds 
events  more  or  less  detached,  and  persons  not 
always  clearly  related  to  the  general  stream  of 
human  life. 

It  was  in  this  period  that  the  Elamites  took 
heavy  revenge  for  much  that  they  had  suffered 

1  Weissbach,  Ein  neuer  Konig  von  Isin,  Babylonische  Miscellen,  p.  1. 

2  Scheil,  Recueil,  xxiii,  pp.  93,  f.,  and  Une  saison  de  fouilles  d,  Sippar, 
p.  140;  Hilprecht,  Babylonian  Expedition,  vol.  xx,  part  i.  (Math. 
Metrolog.  &  Chronolog.  tablets),  pp.  49,  50. 

3  The  date  line  which  gives  this  intelligence  says  simply  “The  year 
in  which  Isin  wras  captured.”  See  M.  Schorr,  Urkunden  des  altbaby- 
lonischen  Zivil  und  Prozessrechts,  p.  588. 


HISTORY  TO  THE  FALL  OF  LARSA  67 

at  the  hands  of  Sumerians.  The  most  dramatic 
of  their  assaults  was  made  by  Kudur-nankhundi 
in  2285  B.  C.,  who  sacked  Erech,  and  doubtless 
carried  away  heavy  booty,  among  it  a  statue 
of  the  goddess  Nana,  who  remained  in  Elam 
as  a  trophy  and  an  exile  until  an  Assyrian  king 
many  centuries  later  carried  her  home  again.1 
The  influence  of  the  Elamite  king  upon  the 
country  which  he  plundered  was  probably  very 
slight,  for  apparently  no  documents  were  dated 
in  his  period.  It  is  probable  that  he  was  not 
successful  in  establishing  any  dominion  over  the 
country  at  all.  But  his  failure  would  not  daunt 
other  princes;  the  prize  was  great,  and  men 
would  not  fail  in  its  winning  for  want  of  a  trial. 

Considerably  later  than  the  time  of  Kudur- 
nankhundi  the  successful  raid  was  made.  The 
Babylonian  inscriptions  have  preserved  for  us 
no  mention  of  the  king’s  name  who  swept 
down  into  the  valley.  The  Hebrews  among 
their  traditions  preserved  the  name  of  Chedor- 
laomer2  (Kudur-Lagamar)  as  the  Elamite  who 
invaded  the  far  west.  To  him  or  to  other 
Elamite  invaders  the  weak  kingdom  of  Sumer 
and  Accad  was  able  to  offer  no  effectual  resist¬ 
ance,  and  the  kings  of  Larsa  were  quickly  dis¬ 
possessed.  The  Elamites  in  a  few  short  years 
had  swept  from  east  to  west,  destroying  king¬ 
doms  whose  foundations  extended  into  the  dis- 


1  See  above,  vol.  i,  p.  498. 

2  See  further  on  Chedorlaomer  below,  p.  84. 


68  HISTOEY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


tant  past.  Their  success  reminds  one  of  the 
career  of  the  Persians  in  a  later  day. 

Somewhat  later,  under  the  rule  of  these 
Elamite  conquerors,  Kudur-Mabuk1  was  prince 
of  E-mutbal,  in  western  Elam.  His  authority 
and  influence  were  extended  into  Babylonia,  and 
perhaps  even  farther  west.  He  built  in  Ur  a 
temple  to  the  moon  god  as  a  thank  offering  for 
his  recovery  from  illness. 

He  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Eri-Aku2  (Arad- 
Sin,  2172-2160),  who  was  still  more  Baby¬ 
lonian  than  his  father.  He  extended  the  city 
of  Ur,  rebuilding  its  great  city  walls  “like  unto 
a  mountain/’  restored  its  temples,  and  appar¬ 
ently  became  a  patron  of  that  city  rather  than 
of  Larsa,  though  he  still  calls  himself  king  of 
Larsa.  The  Elamite  people  were  now  become 
in  the  fullest  sense  masters  of  all  southern  Baby¬ 
lonia.  Eri-Aku  calls  himself  “exalter  of  Ur, 
king  of  Larsa,  king  of  Sumer  and  Accad,”  and 
so  claims  all  the  honors  which  had  belonged  to 
the  kings  of  native  stock  who  had  preceded  him. 
This  invasion  and  occupation  of  southern  Baby¬ 
lonia  by  the  Elamites  prepared  the  way  for  the 
conquest  of  southern  Babylonia  by  the  north 
and  the  establishment  of  a  permanent  order 
of  things  in  the  land  so  long  disturbed. 

1  An  inscription  of  Kudur-Mabuk  is  published  I  R  2,  No.  iii.  See 
full  references  and  translation  in  Rogers,  Cuneiform,  Parallels,  pp.  247, 
248.  Also  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cil.,  pp.  208-211. 

2  Inscriptions  of  Arad-Sin  (Eri-Aku)  are  assembled  by  Thureau- 
Dangin,  op.  cit.,  212,  ff,  who  has  also  distinguished  Arad-Sin  from 
Rim  Sin. 


Clay  Cone  of  Arad-Sin  (Eri-Aku).  [Now  in  the 
Museum  of  Yale  University,  and  here  reproduced  by 
permission  of  Professor  Clay.] 


f 


V  ^  Hi  A 


; v*  V 

1  *  iV* 

.  * 

..  :  -W  ■■■  b  n  -  im  e 

authority 
h.  end*  ■■  kito  h-b  . At  a  a  .‘d 

v,- '  1  is  a  ihark  offering  for 


•  U ;  •  As  son,  Eri-Aku2  (Arad- 

oHi  hi  wo%]  .(u/IA-ha)  nib-bmA  W  AnoO  -^hlO 
yd  haoijfooiqm  owd  ban  ktfA  to  TrfWnM 

[.vb!  )  loag^l uif I  lo  fioi^iinioq 

<,  and 

ei  tly  became  a  j  sMwi  •'  - -AA-  A  an 

of  Ln-'-a  i'houj'i  d  - 1  ;  ».•;•  of 


|  :  :  '  y. 

*  •*  i-  V  *• 

and 
d  no 

A  am  Raby- 
1  way  for  the 
’  :  by  the  north 
eroianont  order 
irhed, 

i  '  If  No.  r  t .  See 

eini'1  •«!  In,  T  nireau- 
•  v  litjb  ■ ;  Ar.-it5  ‘  •  rotu 


. 


-^a 


II— G8 


HISTORY  TO  THE  FALL  OF  LARSA 


69 


Arad-Sin  was  succeeded  by  his  brother  Rim- 
Sin  (2160-2099  B.  C.),  who  claims  rule  over 
Sumer  and  Akkad,  citing  as  under  his  pro¬ 
tection  Nippur,  Ur,  Eridu,  and  Erech,  but 
gives  as  his  primary  title  king  of  Larsa.1  But 
there  is  no  word  of  Babylon,  and  we  shall 
shortly  see  that  Rim-Sin  could  lay  no  claim 
to  any  power  there.  The  Semite  had  long  since 
wrested  all  control  there  from  the  Sumerians, 
and  would  shortly  be  ready  to  take  over  the 
complete  control  of  Sumer  as  well.  Larsa  is 
still  holding  out  against  the  inevitable,  but  the 
descendants  of  Elamites,  not  Sumerians  of  pure 
blood,  are  its  masters.  Rim-Sin  had  prayed 
for  a  “kingdom  to  rejoice  the  heart, ”2  and  if 
length  of  rule  could  fulfill  this  wish  it  was  surely 
his,  for  his  reign  was  long,  and  as  we  shall  see, 
his  life  yet  longer,  but  he  had  no  kingdom  to 
bequeath  to  a  son,  for  Hammurapi,  greatest  of 
the  kings  of  Babylon,  overthrew  his  dominion 
in  the  year  2099  and  made  the  city  of  Babylon 
undisputed  mistress  of  the  whole  land.3 

With  Larsa  ends  the  series  of  small  states,  of 
whose  existence  we  have  caught  mere  glimpses, 
during  a  period  of  more  than  two  thousand  years. 
As  Maspero  has  well  said:  “We  have  here  the 
mere  dust  of  history  rather  than  history  itself; 

1  Price,  op.  cit.,  p.  14.  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  216,  217. 

2  Canephore  B,  col.  2,  line  9.  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  220,  221. 

3  The  Date  Line  which  gives  us  this  news,  reads  thus:  “31.  Year  in 
which  King  Hammurapi,  with  the  help  of  Anu  and  Ellil,  marched  at 
the  head  of  his  army,  and  his  hand  cast  down  the  land  of  Emutbal 
and  King  Rim  Sin.”  Schorr,  op.  cit.,  pp.  591,  592. 


70  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

here  an  isolated  individual  makes  his  appearance 
in  the  record  of  his  name,  to  vanish  when  we  at¬ 
tempt  to  lay  hold  of  him ;  there  the  stem  of  a  dy¬ 
nasty  which  breaks  abruptly  off,  pompous  pre¬ 
ambles,  devout  formulas,  dedications  of  objects 
or  buildings,  here  or  there  the  account  of  some 
battle  or  the  indication  of  some  foreign  country 
with  which  relations  of  friendship  or  commerce 
were  maintained — these  are  the  scanty  materials 
out  of  which  to  construct  a  connected  narrative.” 
But,  though  we  have  only  names  of  kings  of 
various  cities  and  faint  indications  of  their  deeds, 
we  are  able,  nevertheless,  out  of  these  materials 
to  secure  in  some  measure  an  idea  of  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  political  life  and  of  civilization  in  the 
land. 

As  has  been  already  said,  the  civilization  of 
southern  Babylonia,  in  the  period  4000-2300 
B.  C.,  was  at  the  foundation  Sumerian.  But 
during  a  large  part  of  this  time  it  was  Sumerian 
influenced  by  Semitic  civilization.  The  northern 
kingdom  even  about  3000  B.  C.  was  Semitic. 
Intercourse  was  free  and  widely  extended,  as 
the  inscriptions  of  Sargon  and  Naram-Sin  and 
the  operations  of  Gudea  have  conclusively 
shown.  The  Sumerian  civilization  was  old,  and 
the  seeds  of  death  were  in  it;  the  Semitic  civil¬ 
ization,  on  the  other  hand,  was  instinct  with 
life  and  vigor.  The  Semite  had  come  out  of 
the  free  airs  of  the  desert  of  Arabia  and  had 
in  his  veins  a  bounding  life.  It  was  natural 


HISTORY  TO  THE  FALL  OF  LARSA  71 

that  his  vigorous  civilization  should  permeate 
at  first  slowly  and  then  rapidly  into  the  senile 
culture  of  the  Sumerians.  The  Sumerian  in¬ 
scriptions  early  begin  to  give  evidence  of  Semitic 
influence.  Here  it  is  a  word  borrowed  from  the 
Semitic  neighbors,  there  it  is  a  name  of  man  or 
god.  This  influence  increased.  Toward  the  end 
of  the  period  the  Semitic  words  are  frequent, the 
Semitic  idiom  is  in  a  fair  way  to  a  complete 
peaceful  conquest,  and  political  conquest  would 
bring  about  the  final  triumph  of  Semitism, 
though  not  the  extermination  of  Sumerian  in¬ 
fluence.  It  remained  until  the  very  end  of 
Babylon  itself,  and  the  rise  of  the  Indo-European 
world  powers.  The  conservatism  of  religious 
customs  gave  to  the  old  language  and  the  old 
literature,  now  become  sacred,  a  new  life.  The 
temples  still  bore  Sumerian  names  when  Baby¬ 
lon’s  last  conqueror  entered  the  magnificent 
gates. 

Concerning  the  political  development  we  know 
altogether  too  little  for  dogmatic  conclusions. 
The  whole  may  be  summed  up  in  the  following 
manner:  The  earliest  indications  show  us  the 
city  as  the  center  of  government.  The  chief 
man  in  the  city  is  its  king,  or,  if  there  be  no 
title  of  king,  he  is  called  patesi .  When  the  sur¬ 
rounding  country  is  annexed  his  title  remains 
the  same;  he  is  still  king  of  the  city.  But  after 
a  time  a  new  custom  comes  into  vogue.  Ur- 
Ba’u  is  king  of  Ur,  but  he  is  more,  he  is  also 


72  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


king  of  Sumer  and  Accad.  By  that  expression 
we  are  introduced  to  the  conception  of  a  govern¬ 
ment  which  controlled  not  only  segregated  cities, 
but  a  united  country,  northern  and  southern 
Babylonia.  The  position  of  the  capital  was 
indeed  fluctuating.  The  capital  depends  alto¬ 
gether  on  the  king  and  his  place  of  origin.  The 
kingdom  has  its  governmental  center  in  Ur,  but 
Ur  is  not  its  permanent  capital.  The  capital  is 
later  found  in  Isin,  and  the  kings  of  Isin  are 
then  kings  of  Sumer  and  Accad  when  they  have 
conquered  and  bear  rule  in  the  north  and  south. 
This  old  title  lives  on  through  the  centuries,  and 
iater  kings  in  other  cities  are  proud  to  carry 
it  on  their  inscriptions. 

This  union  of  all  Babylonia  under  one  king 
was  not  the  means  of  creating  a  national  unity 
strong  enough  to  resist  the  outside  invader. 
Sumerian  civilization  seemed  to  have  reached 
the  end  of  its  development  as  a  political  factor. 
The  raids  of  the  Elamites  scattered  and  broke 
its  power,  and  the  time  was  ready  for  a  man 
strong  enough  to  conquer  the  petty  kings  of 
Larsa,  take  the  title  of  king  of  Sumer  and  Accad 
and  make  a  strong  kingdom. 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  FIRST  AND  SECOND  DYNASTIES  OF  BABYLON 

The  origin  of  the  city  of  Babylon  is  veiled  in 
impenetrable  obscurity.  The  first  city  built 
upon  the  site  must  have  been  founded  fully  four 
thousand  years  before  Christ,  and  it  may  have 
been  much  earlier.  The  city  is  named  in  the 
Omen  tablet  of  Sargon,1  and,  though  this  is  no 
proof  that  the  city  was  actually  in  existence 
more  than  three  thousand  years  before  Christ, 
it  does  prove  that  a  later  tradition  assigned  to 
it  this  great  antiquity.  At  this  early  date,  how¬ 
ever,  it  seems  not  to  have  been  a  city  of  im¬ 
portance.  During  the  long  period  of  the  rise  of 
the  kingdom  of  Sumer  and  Accad  few  kings 
in  the  south  find  Babylon  worthy  of  mention, 
though  Babylon  must  have  been  developing  into 
a  city  of  influence  during  the  later  centuries  of 
the  dominion  of  Isin  and  Larsa.  From  about 
2200  B.  C.  the  influence  of  this  city  extends 
almost  without  a  break  to  the  period  of  the 
Seleucides.  No  capital  in  the  world  has  ever 
been  the  center  of  so  much  power,  wealth,  and 
culture  for  a  period  so  vast.  It  is  indeed  a 
brilliant  cycle  of  centuries  upon  which  we  enter. 

1  IV  R.  34,  obverse  1.  8.  KeilinHchrift.  Bibl.,  iii,  part  i,  pp.  102,  103. 

73 


74  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


The  rise  of  Babylon  to  supremacy  over  the 
more  ancient  cities  both  of  northern  and  of 
southern  Babylonia,  is  associated  with  the  de¬ 
velopment  of  a  new  strain  of  blood  and  life 
among  the  Semites.  The  Semites,  who  had 
poured  in  successive  streams  of  migration  from 
Arabia,  had  found  homes  in  many  and  diverse 
places,  and  in  each  of  these  the  originally 
homogeneous  race  had  developed  civilizations 
differing  in  some  points  from  each  other.  It 
is  increasingly  evident,  as  the  study  of  anthropol¬ 
ogy  goes  forward,  that  the  races  of  mankind 
are  deeply  modified  by  climate,  soil,  and  the 
food  indigenous  to  particular  localities,  and  that 
man’s  power  of  adaptation  to  diverse  conditions 
changes  him  in  many  unexpected  ways.  We 
have  been  seeing  how  Semites  had  developed 
in  Accad  into  a  conquering  race  who  under 
Sargon  and  Naram-Sin  had  made  the  Semitic 
name  a  terror  to  the  Sumerians.  We  are  now 
to  see  consequences  of  the  greatest  moment 
which  flow  from  conquests  made  by  the  former- 
king  in  quite  another  direction.  Sargon  had 
made  campaigns  into  the  far  west  to  the  coasts 
of  the  Mediterranean  and  found  there  people 
of  Semitic  blood,  dwelling  in  communities,  and 
with  a  civilization  of  their  own  with  many 
divergences  from  that  in  Accad.  They  had 
indeed  other  gods  than  those  worshiped  among 
their  cousins  in  the  East,  such  as  Amar,  the 
sun  god,  and  A  dad  or  Hadad,  god  of  storms, 


FIRST  AND  SECOND  DYNASTIES 


75 


and  of  the  mountain/  or  at  least  used  for  their 
deities  other  names  than  those  common  in 
Accad.  As  the  names  of  the  gods  figure  so 
largely  in  the  personal  names  of  the  early 
Semites,  the  names  of  the  Amorites  had  also 
become  quite  different  from  those  in  the  east, 
and  by  their  names  we  are  frequently  able  to 
trace  their  presence  far  from  their  native  land. 

These  Amorites  conquered  by  Sargon  became 
in  some  sense  tributary  to  Accad.  The  early 
Semitic  rulers  of  Babylonia  surely  could  make 
no  pretense  to  have  extended  their  empire  to 
the  Mediterranean  coasts.  They  ravaged,  plun¬ 
dered,  took  slaves,  and  overawed  the  Amorites 
enough  to  compel  the  paying  of  tribute  for  a 
time.  When  it  ceased  they  made  fresh  cam¬ 
paigns  of  conquest.  After  these  raids  the  Am¬ 
orites  came  to  learn  of  Accad,  and  into  it  came 
not  only  those  who  were  carried  thither  un¬ 
willing  as  slaves,  but  also  merchants  and  set¬ 
tlers.  The  two  chief  wings  of  the  Semites,  east 
and  west,  were  beginning  to  fold  together  again. 

When  the  Semitic  empire  of  Accad  began  to 
wane,  the  Amorites,  who  had  learned  war 
through  suffering  its  ravages,  must  have  begun 
to  make  reprisals  upon  their  erstwhile  con¬ 
querors.  But  we  are  unhappily  not  able  to 
follow  their  expeditions,  for  they  were  not 

1  See  for  these  names  A.  T.  Clay,  Amurru,  pp.  95,  ff.  Some  of  the 
other  names  which  Clay  adduces  as  also  Amorite  or  West  Semitic, 
are  more  probably  common  Semitic. 


76  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


writers  as  were  the  kings  of  Accad.  How  early 
they  may  have  begun  to  raid  and  plunder  we 
do  not  know,  but  the  menace  of  them  was  felt 
strongly  as  early  as  the  days  of  Gimil-Sin 
(2392-2383  B.  C.),  who  built  a  city  wall  espe¬ 
cially  designed  to  keep  out  the  Amorites.1 
There  is  another  echo  of  their  hostile  move¬ 
ments  during  the  reign  of  Libit-Ishtar,  whom 
some  unknown  Amorite  drove  from  his  city.2 
These  instances  give  but  small  indications  of 
what  were  doubtless  frequent,  and  often  more 
important  attacks  by  Amorites  upon  the  other 
branch  of  their  race. 

By  conquest  in  some  places,  by  peaceful  pene¬ 
tration  in  others,  the  western  Semite  made  his 
way  into  dominance  if  not  into  actual  numerical 
superiority.  The  first  surely  known  appearance 
of  a  king  with  an  Amorite  name  upon  the  throne 
of  a  Babylonian  city  was  in  the  person  of  Sumu- 
abi,  king  of  Babylon,  and  founder  of  the  dis¬ 
tinguished  first  dynasty  of  the  city.  His  ante¬ 
cedents,  and  his  own  early  life  and  works  are 
alike  unknown  to  us.  His  figure  rises  suddenly 

1  Gimil-Sin  date  formula  for  the  fifth  year.  The  text  gives  simply 
Amurru,  which  Thureau-Dangin  (Die  Sumerischen  und  Akkadischen 
Konigsinschriften,  p.  234)  translates  “the  west,”  but  gives  in  a  foot¬ 
note  the  variant  reading  Amurru  (ki)  which  makes  the  sense  the  Amor¬ 
ite  country,  and  this  is  to  be  preferred.  The  wall  was  to  defend  against 
the  invasions  from  the  Amorite  country. 

2  The  only  record  of  this  is  in  a  date  line  published  in  Cuneiform 
Texts,  iv,  22,  c.  Compare  Ranke,  Orientalistische  Liter atur-Zeitung  x 
(1907),  col.  112.  The  arguments  against  the  interpretation  advanced 
by  Lindl,  ibid.,  col.  387,  are  groundless.  The  date-line  is  repeated 
in  Schorr,  Urkunden  des  Althabylonischen  Zivil-  und  Prozessrechts,  p.  614. 


FIRST  AND  SECOND  DYNASTIES 


to  view,  and  with  him  Babylon  begins  to  put 
on  the  aspect  of  greatness. 

The  reign  of  Sumu-abi  (2232-2218  B.  C.)  is 
known  to  us  almost  entirely  by  brief  date  lines/ 
and  these  were  all  written  in  Sumerian,  though 
the  king  himself  was  a  Semite ;  the  old  language 
was  still  in  much  vigor,  and  the  day  of  its 
extinction  was  yet  far  off.  Sumu-abks  first  act 
would  seem  to  have  been  the  erection  of  the 
great  city  wall  of  Babylon,  but  most  of  his 
labor  was  given  to  the  erection  and  adornment 
of  the  temple  of  Nannar,  which  was  probably 
located  in  Babylon. 

In  the  thirteenth  year  of  his  reign  Kasallu 
was  ravaged,  and  war  had  begun.  But  there 
was  another  campaign  of  the  kings  of  much 
greater  consequence,  for  the  Chronicler2  has  pre¬ 
served  the  statement  that  he  was  at  war  with 
Ilu-shuma,  king  of  Assyria,  but  has  left  us  no 
further  account  as  to  the  cause  or  the  result 
of  the  conflict.  After  a  reign  of  fourteen  years 
Sumu-abi  disappears  as  quietly  as  he  came  and 
Sumu-la-ilu  (2218-2182  B.  C.)  reigned  as  the 
second  king  of  the  dynasty,  though  he  is  not 
known  to  have  been  related  to  the  founder. 
His  long  reign  was  crowded  with  incident  and 
filled  with  great  deeds.  In  it  even  in  the  narrow 
and  arid  details  of  date  lines  we  can  discern3  the 

1  These  lists,  published  Cuneiform  Texts,  vi,  9,  10,  are  assembled  and 
translated  in  Schorr,  op.  cit.,  pp.  582,  583. 

2  King,  C  tiro  nicies,  p.  14. 

3  See  the  complete  list  for  his  reign  in  Schorr,  op.  cit.,  pp.  583-5. 


78  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


great  progress  of  empire,  the  rise  of  Babylon  to 
supremacy  over  the  most  ancient  cities  of  Accad. 

The  first  hint  of  his  activity  is  not  in  war, 
but,  as  was  well  suited  a  ruler  in  such  a  land, 
the  digging  of  canals,  one  of  them,  named 
Shamash-khegal,  of  such  importance  that  two 
years  were  named  after  it,  while  another,  named 
after  himself,  was  excavated  in  his  eleventh  year, 
and  gave  its  name  to  two  years.  But  if  these 
beneficent  acts  distinguish  his  reign,  successful 
war  is  still  more  marked  in  it.  In  his  thirteenth 
year  Kish  fell  before  him  and  was  devastated. 
Nothing  could  be  more  significant  of  the  rise 
of  Babylon’s  power,  and  it  is  not  surprising 
that  five  years  were  named  from  so  momentous 
an  occurrence.  Kish  had  been  a  city  well 
accustomed  to  the  rule  of  other  states,  and  its 
imperial  rule  had  now  passed  to  a  city  of  no 
consequence  during  the  greater  part  of  its  long 
rule.  Next  Kasallu  suffered  again  as  it  had  in 
former  days,  and  this  time  its  king  Yakhzir- 
ilum  was  carried  off  into  captivity,  and  the  city 
wall,  dedicated  to  Ann,  was  destroyed.  In  some 
way  the  king  escaped  and  in  Sumu-la-ilu’s 
twenty-fifth  year  had  to  be  conquered  again. 

During  his  reign  three  kings,  Ilum-ma-ila, 
Immerum,  and  Bunutakhtun-ila,  bore  rule  in 
Sippar  and  date  lines1  have  come  to  us  from 
them,  but  their  rule  was  either  subject  to  his 
overlordship,  or  it  was  slipping  away,  for  his 


1  Schorr,  op.  cit.,  p.  Gil. 


FIRST  AND  SECOND  DYNASTIES 


79 


dates  show  that  in  his  twenty-ninth  year  he 
built  the  city  wall  of  Sippar.  Cutha  had 
already  passed  into  his  control,  and  peace 
enough  was  enjoyed  in  his  bloody  truces  to  en¬ 
able  him  to  set  up  a  gold  and  silver  throne  to 
Marduk,  presumably  at  Babylon.  His  hand  had 
been  heavy  upon  the  neighboring  cities,  but  he 
handed  on  to  his  son  and  successor  a  consol¬ 
idated  dominion  such  as  Babylon  had  never 
enjoyed  before. 

Zabum1  (2182-2168  B.  C.)  reigned  in  a  lull 
of  peace,  no  warlike  enterprise  being  set  down 
in  memory  of  him  save  the  destruction  of  the 
wall  of  Kasallu  in  his  twelfth  year.  His  labors 
were  given  chiefly  to  temple  building  and 
restoration.  The  temple  of  the  Moon  god  in 
Sippar  he  built  and  there  sixteen  centuries  later 
the  devout  king  Nabonidus  found  his  name 
written  amid  the  foundations  of  the  temple  of 
Anunit,2  and  in  the  former  his  bronze  statue 
was  set  up.  He  also  dug  a  canal,  and  left  a 
kingdom  undiminished,  so  far  as  we  can  yet 
know,  to  his  son  Apil-Sin  (2168-2150  B.  C.), 
who  ruled,  as  his  father  had  done,  in  peace.  His 
reign  served  only  to  strengthen  the  city  wall  of 
Babylon,  and  to  erect  a  new  chief  gate  on  its 
eastern  side,  while  a  new  canal  helped  irriga¬ 
tion  and  commerce. 

1  The  name  is  written  also  Zabium  in  the  date  lines,  which  are  as¬ 
sembled  by  Schorr,  op.  cit.,  585,  6. 

2  Nabonidus,  Ur  inscription  I  R.  69,  col.  iii,  line  29.  Langdon,  Neu- 
babylonische  Kbniysinschr  i/ten ,  pp.  248,  249. 


80  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


Times  more  troublous  and  fateful  fell  upon 
Sin-muballit  (2150-2130  B.  C.),  who  inherited 
his  father’s  peaceful  throne.  The  first  of  his 
important  campaigns  was  in  his  fourteenth  year 
when  he  overcome  the  army  of  Ur.  We  do 
not  certainly  know  who  was  then  king  in  Ur, 
but  there  is  at  least  a  strong  presumption 
that  the  city  was  then  under  the  dominion  of 
Larsa,  probably  under  Arad-Sin  (Eri-Aku),  who 
is  known  to  have  been  his  contemporary.1  Three 
years  later  Isin  was  taken,  and  the  entire  in¬ 
corporation  of  Accad  was  brought  much  nearer, 
while  in  three  years  more  even  Larsa  was  at¬ 
tacked,  though  not  yet  fully  mastered.  Sin- 
muballit  had  indeed  made  a  gain  over  the 
military  achievements  of  Sumu-abi,  but  it  would 
be  some  time  yet  before  the  whole  land  should 
acknowledge  both  north  and  south  the  hegemony 
of  the  upstart  city  of  Babylon. 

Like  his  predecessors,  Sin-muballit  dug  canals 
and  built  city  walls  notably  at  Karkar,  Marad, 
and  Rubatum.  He  apparently  built  no  new 
temples,  but  showed  his  interest  in  the  cultus 
by  making  shrines  for  Nergal  and  his  consort 
Allat  at  Cutha.  He  had  wrought  well,  but 
his  glory  would  speedily  be  eclipsed  by  the 
grander  achievements  of  his  more  distinguished 
son  Hammurapi  (2130-2087  B.  C.),  with  whom 
begins  a  new  era.  It  is  the  chief  glory  of  his 
name  that  he  made  a  united  Babylonia,  and 


1  Compare  Langdon,  Miscellanea  Assyriaca. 


FIRST  AND  SECOND  DYNASTIES 


81 


that  the  union  which  he  cemented  remained  until 
the  scepter  passed  from  Semitic  hands  to  an¬ 
other  race.  In  this  he  far  exceeded  the  success 
of  Sargon  and  Lugalzaggisi,  whose  empires  were 
of  but  short  duration.  Yet  he  had  even  greater 
difficulties  to  meet  than  they.  The  Elamites 
were  firmly  fastened  in  the  country,  and  would 
hardly  give  it  up  without  a  struggle.  The 
activity  displayed  by  these  Elamite  princes  in 
building  was  an  indication  of  how  much  they 
valued  their  new  possessions. 

We  are  now  in  possession  of  facts  enough  to 
enable  us  to  follow  the  movements  of  Ham- 
murapi  in  his  conquest  and,  more  wonderful 
still,  in  his  organization  of  the  country.  The 
struggle  was  severe  and  was  prolonged  through 
the  larger  part  of  this  long  reign,  but  the  end 
of  it  was  almost  assured  from  the  beginning. 
A  man  with  such  capacity  for  the  making  of 
war,  and  with  yet  greater  powers  of  organiza¬ 
tion,  of  administration  and  of  order  was  sure 
of  a  large  issue  in  achievement. 

The  first  campaign  of  Hammurapi  known  to 
us  occurred  in  his  seventh  year,  when  Erech  and 
Isin  fell  before  him,  and  the  first  great  step 
was  taken  toward  a  reunion  of  Accad  and 
Sumer  under  a  single  scepter.  The  blow  thus 
delivered  at  Isin  was  not  conclusive.  Isin  was 
ruled  by  Rim-Sin,  king  of  Larsa,  who  boasted 
himself  of  its  possession  and  would  be  able  to 
continue  in  some  sort  of  control  of  it  for  years 


82  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


to  come.  Hammurapi  had  merely  shaken  it, 
and  Rim  Sin,  though  unable  to  save  it  from 
whatever  humiliation  or  sacrifice  this  had  pro¬ 
duced,  was  not  compelled  to  yield  its  possession 
to  the  new  empire  builder.  Though  this  was 
not  a  great  victory  for  Hammurapi  it  was, 
nevertheless,  of  some  moment,  and  from  this 
his  campaigns  went  steadily  onward  toward 
their  goal. 

In  his  eighth  year  he  made  two  campaigns, 
the  one  against  the  district  beyond  the  Tigris 
which  he  had  pierced  with  the  canal  Nuhush- 
nishe,  and  the  other  against  Emutbal.  In  the 
next  year  there  seems  to  have  been  no  cam¬ 
paign  at  all,  while  the  energies  of  the  king 
were  bent  upon  the  making  of  a  great  canal, 
of  which  he  was  so  proud  that  he  called  it  “the 
abundance  of  Hammurapi”  (Hammurapi  khe- 
gallu),  for  abundance  it  would  bring  to  his 
people  when  it  conveyed  the  waters  of  the 
Euphrates  to  their  fields. 

In  the  next  following  years  Malgum,  on  the 
Euphrates,  was  conquered  and  came  into  his 
hands,  while  Rabikum  and  Shalibi  met  a  sim¬ 
ilar  fate.  These  cities  find  mention  only  in  the 
date  lines1  of  business  tablets,  but  we  hear 
nothing  in  these  of  the  conquest  of  the  Sumerian 
cities,  save  for  the  great  struggle  with  Rim-Sin. 
It  was  in  the  thirty-first  year  of  his  reign  that 

1  See  these  date  lines  for  Hammurapi’s  reign  in  Schorr,  Urkunden 
des  Altbabylonischen  Zivil -  und  Prozessrcchts,  pp.  589,  ff. 


FIRST  AND  SECOND  DYNASTIES 


S3 


the  decisive  blow  was  struck.  Hammurapi  col¬ 
lected  his  forces  and  overthrew  the  land  of 
Emutbal  and  the  king  Rim-Sin  (2160-2099 
B.  C.).  Emutbal  was  the  ancestral  country  of 
Rim-Sin,  and  was  still  held  by  him  though  his 
own  boasts  were  chiefly  of  rule  in  Babylonia 
under  the  style  of  King  of  Larsa.  It  is  sig¬ 
nificant  that  he  dated  all  events  in  this  reign 
for  thirty-one  years  from  his  capture  of  Larsa, 
and  no  less  significant  that  when  Hammurapi 
finally  destroyed  him  he  does  not  call  him  king 
of  Larsa,  but  proudly  writes  of  him  only  as 
king  of  Emutbal,  as  though  he  had  long  held 
Larsa  himself. 

By  this  time  Hammurapi  had  welded  into  one 
fairly  compact  whole  the  kingdoms  of  Accad 
and  Sumer,  with  the  territory  of  Mesopotamia 
on  their  north.  He  was  also  in  some  sense  the 
real  ruler  of  Assyria,  for  its  king  Shamshi- 
Adad  I,  son  of  Ellil-kapi,  counted  himself  a 
tributary  of  the  king  of  Babylon  and  assisted 
his  suzerain  in  the  attacks  upon  Elam. 

It  would  seem  most  probable  that  Hammurapi 
would  also  seek  to  control  the  destinies  of  the 
small  western  states  bordering  upon  the  Mediter¬ 
ranean  Sea,  the  ancient  homeland  of  his  own 
section  of  the  Semitic  people.  There  is,  however, 
in  the  texts  of  his  own  time  no  allusion  to  any 
western  campaign.  The  Hebrews  preserved  a 
legend  of  a  great  expedition  into  the  west  of 
Hammurapi,  whose  name  is  written  Amraphel, 


84  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


in  association  with  “Arioch  king  of  Ellasar, 
Chedorlaomer  king  of  Elam,  and  Tidal  king  of 
the  nations’"  (Goyyim).  Arioch  is  for  Eri-Aku, 
the  Sumerian  form  for  Arad-Sin  king  of  Larsa 
(Ellasar),  and  Chedorlaomer  is  the  good  Elamite 
name  Kudur-lagamar,  not  yet  found  on  any 
Elamite  or  Babylonian  document  of  this  early 
period,  but  both  the  word  Kudur  (servant  of, 
or  worshiper  of)  and  Lagamar,  an  Elamite  god, 
are  amply  supported.1  Tidal  is  a  Hittite  name, 
not  verifiable,  indeed,  in  any  original  texts  of 
this  period,  but  identical  with  the  name  of  a 
Hittite  king  in  Asia  Minor  (Boghaz  Keui)  cen¬ 
turies  later,2  and  may  well  have  been  borne  by 

1  Kudur  appears  frequently  in  these  Elamite  names.  Lagamar 
occurs  as  the  name  of  an  Elamite  deity  in  an  Assyrian  text  (V  R.  vi, 
col.  6,  33),  and  also  in  the  inscriptions  of  Anzan-Shushinak  (F.  H. 
Weissbach,  Anzanische  Inschriften,  Abh.  d.  phil.  hist.  Classe.  der  k. 
Sachs.  Ges.  d.  Wissenschaften,  xii,  p.  125.  Leipzig,  1891).  Unfor¬ 
tunately  a  sharp  controversy  has  occurred  over  the  name  Chedorlaomer 
which  was  thought  to  appear  in  some  texts  of  the  period  of  the  Arsacidse 
(see  Pinches,  Journal  of  the  Transactions  of  the  Victoria  Institute,  xxix, 
1897,  pp.  56,  ff.),  and  Father  Scheil  thought  that  he  also  had  found 
the  name  in  early  tablets  ( Revue  Biblique,  v,  October,  1896,  pp.  600,  f.; 
Recueil  de  Travaux  relatif  .  .  .  Egypt,  et  Ass.,  xix,  4,  ff.).  In  the  latter 
case  King  ( Letters  and  Inscriptions  of  Hammurabi,  London,  1898,  p. 
xxix)  has  shown  conclusively  that  the  text  was  misread  by  Scheil  and 
that  the  name  Chedorlaomer  does  not  occur  on  it.  He  has  further 
demonstrated  that  the  reading  of  Mr.  Pinches  is  very  doubtful.  Keen 
and  successful  though  his  criticism  is,  it  can  hardly  be  denied  that 
beneath  all  the  obscurity  there  lies  a  real  reference  to  the  Chedorlaomer 
of  Gen.  xiv.  Such,  for  example,  is  the  view  of  Zimmern  ( Theologische 
Rundschau,  i,  pp.  320,  321)  and  Driver  ( Authority  and  Archceology, 
pp.  42,  43).  See,  for  a  learned  discussion  of  the  whole  matter,  the 
article  “Chedorlaomer,”  by  Thiele  and  Kosters,  in  Encyclopaedia  Biblica 
(ed.  Cheyne  &  Black),  i,  cols.  732-734. 

2  The  name  of  this  Hittite  king  is  written  in  cuneiform  Dud-khaliya, 
the  successor  of  Hattusil  (Century  XII  B.  C.).  See  J.  Garstang, 
The  Land  of  the  Hittites,  pp.  351,  352,  and  compare  a  note  from  Sayce, 
ibid.,  p.  324,  n.  4,  who  there  also  makes  allusion  to  the  occurrence  of 


FIRST  AND  SECOND  DYNASTIES 


85 


a-  Hittite  prince  of  the  period  of  Hammurapi. 
The  association  of  four  such  kings  or  princes 
for  a  campaign  in  the  west  is  not  in  itself  im¬ 
probable,  and  the  Hebrew  writer  to  whom  we 
owe  the  preservation  of  the  interesting  legend, 
which  a  later* 1  day  associated  with  the  great 
name  of  Abraham,  may  well  have  been  standing 
upon  some  little  fragment  of  history,  con¬ 
temporaneous  with  the  great  Babylonian  king. 

As  soon  as  the  conquest  of  Sumer  and  Accad 
was  completed  and  the  empire  placed  upon  a 
solid  foundation  so  far  as  the  sword  had  been 
able  to  accomplish  it,  Hammurapi  showed  him¬ 
self  the  statesman  even  more  than  the  soldier. 
The  southern  part  of  his  kingdom,  including  the 
cities  of  Larsa,  Ur,  Erecli,  Lagash,  and  their 
environs,  were  placed  under  the  administrative 
care  of  a  high  officer  of  state  who  bore  the  name 
Sin-idinam,  to  whom  Hammurapi  sent  letters 

the  name  in  the  form  Tudkhul  in  the  text  published  by  Pinches.  See 
above,  p.  84,  note  1. 

1  It  is  now  generally  recognized  that  Genesis  xiv  does  not  belong 
to  any  one  of  the  well  known  writers  of  the  original  documents,  neither 
to  J,  to  E,  or  to  P,  but  is  rather  “an  isolated  boulder  in  the  stratification 
of  the  Pentateuch”  [Skinner],  though  it  does  seem  to  me  that  its  linguis¬ 
tic  character  gives  considerable  signs  of  affinities  with  P,  larger  than 
Skinner,  for  example,  will  allow.  Whatever  its  origin,  it  is,  in  its  present 
form,  certainly  not  earlier  than  the  Exile.  In  the  light  of  all  the  facts 
now  known  of  the  period,  the  narrative  seems  certainly  to  contain 
historical  improbabilities.  Yet  in  outline  it  may  well  be  based  upon 
some  historical  foundation.  The  names  of  Amraphel,  Arioch,  and 
probably  Chedorlaomer  are  historical.  It  is,  however,  not  possible 
to  reconcile  the  date  of  Amraphel  (Hammurapi)  with  the  date  of  Abra¬ 
ham  (compare  Gen.  xv,  13,  16),  as  the  earlier  sources  give  but  400 
years  between  him  and  the  Exodus.  See  the  elaborate  discussion 
of  the  historical  problems  in  Skinner,  Commentary  on  Genesis ,  pp.  271-276, 
and  O.  Proksch,  Die  Genesis,  iibersetzt  und  erklart,  pp.  505-515, 


86  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


and  dispatches  in  large  number.1  These  prove 
the  king’s  concern  for  the  daily  life  of  his  people, 
and  show  an  amazing  fertility  of  resource  united 
with  decision  of  character.  Manifold  questions, 
some  of  small  moment  in  our  eyes,  were  re¬ 
ferred  to  the  king,  and  the  answer  went  back 
upon  a  well-written  clay  tablet,  on  which  the 
question  was  given  in  brief  resume,  and  the 
decision  followed  in  clear,  direct,  and  brief  form. 
In  these  letters  we  may  read  of  the  activities 
of  the  king  and  his  officials  and  learn  of  the 
dispatch  of  troops;  the  conveyance  of  gods 
from  one  shrine  to  another;  the  insertion  of  an 
intercalary  month  in  the  calendar;  the  restora¬ 
tion  of  landed  property  which  had  been  illegally 
escheated;  the  punishment  of  bribery;  the  in¬ 
spection  of  royal  flocks  and  herds;  or  even  the 
restoration  of  a  baker  to  a  post  formerly  held 
by  him.2  In  no  previous  reign,  nor  indeed  in 
any  following  one  for  centuries,  have  we  had 
such  a  picture  of  the  social  life  of  a  people. 

Not  content  with  an  administration  which 
rested  upon  successive  decisions  of  the  king 
himself,  Hammurapi  compiled  a  great  code  of 
laws,  inscribed  upon  imperishable  stone,  and 
forming  the  longest  cuneiform  inscription  yet 
recovered.  The  copy  which  has  survived  to 

1  These  are  in  large  measure  to  be  seen  in  King,  The  Letters  and  In¬ 
scriptions  of  Hammurabi ,  vol.  ii.  A  few  specimens  may  be  seen  in 
Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels ,  pp.  248-252. 

2  See  the  letters  in  L.  W.  King,  The  Letters  and  Inscriptions  of  Ham¬ 
murabi,  vol.  ii,  passim. 


'$«93l»#Jf5 

:  *j  wTksM  T  fw$t*£ u 


■}^W0 


s^skmMl 

•if  ~wMt&2‘*7  »®i6W'JgP 


•rY*r^|, 

M^'Cv'W: 


II — S7 


.1  U;:  T  '  •  /  J  -  N A  STb  ' 


87 


om  lime  w;  •  four-  '  ,rn,  an  1  h-A  suibered 

been  -erased  with  >•  ai  ic /  o  us/ig  t  ie 

fine  block  of  aft--:  .  ./  *er  inscription. 

originally  writ  ^  t  , 

to  av/£j  io  obo  )  odi  dhw  f)9gtioam  tfil9Jr  iU&a&I 

J.p  .a  vfco£-0Si.£)  nolvdaH  to  and 

;•/•  •  *  r  b.  -  r  •  .  a  r 


-innoiio  m  novo*  bnc  ) d^ioft  rii  tooi  tdgio  _ 
^fritfi9g9iqoi  hilm  £  gf'treq  laqqu  eill  taO  r  . $oti)Si.&\ 
rfjrv/  enoirb  piri  noqu  batfisg  ‘<bo;g  m/g  odi  ,-i^ feSsrti^f fR 
'b£9if  arrf  noqTj  .gxiffitiiuom  exit  xioqfj  gfiitelo  Hoi  'bd 
erit  bri£>{  gift  xfi  bxi£  pov/oq  io  avr<w  imnod  exit 
moil  eiifiw  ,y.Ta^irn9TOP  'io  o&iiineidme  hot/ imi;  ;  ;/'t 
pbneta  mid  sioiaH  .oift  'to  gomeft  oan  e~oblno  :  •  -A 
-ni:  9i£  dditw  .,pw4I  to  ohoo^Jj  ^dvboo-r  <$mb  '  >  t 
.i)X|£  bii£  b9nui  bind  dxjgh  -id  .w.b  ;  bo  br 

•  oiJ-t  io:  xiiuopu t-/w .  ,  ;v/(/  .. 

UobV*  dtemM  ;>•  .77-  vd  I;  .  - 

1 

thk  come  the  :  iws  relating  to  .dabci  hot  o 
Mod  <  o  -  o  <  ,»  <b  the  qreat  code  c  o  e  wr  I 
a  :  v  /in  which  the  king,  who  is  a 

h  <  subjects.  ’  enjoins  obedience  to 

tLo^  ,  i  ople  and  upon  be  kings  who 

w  hich  I  b;  •  ib-ven,  the  decisions  which  I  have 

‘  Johns,  iu  H  iskg  . 

•’  An  inl<  .  ’’  ■  o  t  ija  o  •  f . >t:  i  t’  ■  ■  ‘  :  b '» 

which  b  iVft  !  •  ">  '*  J  into  one  in  the  Hamimi  .?>i  code. 

t .  I  *t.  I  ,  .  K 


Basalt  Stela,  inscribed  with  the  Code  of  Laws  of 
Hammurapi,  king  of  Babylon  (2130-2087  B.  C.), 
nearly  eight  feet  in  height  and  seven  in  circum¬ 
ference.  On  the  upper  part  is  a  relief  representing 
Shamash,  the  sun  god,  seated  upon  his  throne  with 
his  feet  resting  upon  the  mountains.  Upon  his  head 
is  the  horned  crown  of  power,  and  in  his  hand  the 
ring  and  staff  emblematic  of  sovereignty,  while  from 
his  shoulders  rise  flames  of  fire.  Before  him  stands 
the  king  receiving  the  code  of  laws,  which  are  in¬ 
scribed  below,  his  right  hand  bared  and  raised,  and 
his  posture  indicating  worship.  Museum  of  the 
Louvre,  Paris. 

[Photograph  supplied  by  W.  A.  Mansell  &  Co., 
London.] 


FIRST  AND  SECOND  DYNASTIES 


87 


our  time  was  found  in  Elam,  and  had  suffered 
the  loss  of  five  columns  of  writing,  which  had 
been  erased  with  the  intention  of  using  the 
fine  block  of  stone  for  another  inscription.  As 
originally  written  it  is  estimated1  to  have  con¬ 
tained  “forty-nine  columns,  four  thousand  lines, 
and  about  eight  thousand  words. ”  Like  every 
other  code  of  laws  known  to  us,  it  was  not 
made  by  the  king’s  counselors  de  novo ,  but  had 
its  roots  in  the  past  and  was  a  compilation2 
rather  than  a  creation.  It  begins  with  sections 
on  Evidence  and  Decision,  and  then  passes  to 
the  never-ending  problem  of  Property,  to  which 
no  less  than  one  hundred  and  twenty  laws  are 
devoted.  But  a  small  part  of  this  long  section 
is  given  to  personal  property,  the  major  portion 
being  devoted  to  real  property.  Following  this 
the  Code  deals  with  the  Person,  under  which 
head  the  Family  holds  a  chief  place.  Upon 
this  come  the  laws  relating  to  Labor,  both  free 
and  enslaved,  and  the  great  code  closes  with 
a  long  passage  in  which  the  king,  who  is  “a 
father  to  his  subjects,”  enjoins  obedience  to 
these  upon  all  people  and  upon  the  kings  who 
should  rule  after  him  “forever  and  ever.”  No 
king  is  to  forget  them:  “The  law  of  the  land, 
which  I  have  given,  the  decisions  which  I  have 

1  Johns,  in  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  v,  p.  584. 

2  An  interesting  proof  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  two  Sumerian  laws 
which  have  been  combined  into  one  in  the  Hammurapi  code.  See 
A.  T.  Clay,  A  Sumerian  Prototype  of  the  Hammurapi  Code.  Oriental - 
istische  Liter aturzeilung,  January,  1914,  cols.  1-3. 


88  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

pronounced,  he  shall  not  alter,  nor  efface  my 
image.  If  that  man  have  wisdom,  if  he  wish  to 
keep  his  land  in  order,  he  shall  take  heed  to 
the  words  which  I  have  written  upon  my  mon¬ 
ument.  The  procedure,  the  administration,  and 
the  law  of  the  land,  which  I  have  given,  the 
decisions  which  I  have  pronounced,  this  mon¬ 
ument  will  show  unto  him.  He  shall  so  rule  his 
subjects,  pronounce  judgment,  give  decisions, 
drive  the  wicked  and  evildoers  from  the  land, 
and  promote  his  people’s  prosperity.”1  Ham- 
murapi  also  displayed  extraordinary  care  in  the 
development  of  the  resources  of  the  land,  and 
in  thus  increasing  the  wealth  and  comfort  of 
the  inhabitants.  The  chiefest  of  his  great  works 
is  best  described  in  his  own  ringing  words — 
the  words  of  a  conqueror,  a  statesman,  and  a 
patriot:  “Hammurapi,  the  powerful  king,  king 
of  Babylon,  .  .  .  when  Anu  and  Bel  gave  unto 
me  to  rule  the  land  of  Sumer  and  Accad,  and 
with  their  scepter  filled  my  hands,  I  dug  the 
canal  Hammurapi,  the  abundance  of  the  people, 
which  bringeth  abundance  of  water  unto  the 
land  of  Sumer  and  Accad.  Its  banks  upon  both 

1  The  editio  princeps  of  the  code  is  by  Vincent  Scheil,  Memoires  de 
la  Delegation  en  Perse,  vol.  iv,  1902.  See  further  Hugo  Winckler, 
Die  Gesetze  Hammurabis  in  Umschrift  und  Uebersetzung,  Leipzig,  1904. 
Robert  F.  Harper,  The  Code  of  Hammurabi,  Chicago,  1904.  C.  H.  W. 
Johns,  Code  of  Hammurabi.  Hastings,  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  v,  pp. 
584,  ff.,  1904,  with  an  excellent  general  discussion  of  the  code’s  pro¬ 
visions  as  well  as  a  translation.  D.  G.  Lyon,  The  Structure  of  the  Ham¬ 
murabi  Code  in  the  Journal  of  the  American  Oriental  Society,  vol.  xxv, 
pp.  248,  ff.,  1904,  with  the  best  topical  analysis.  The  entire  code  in 
transliteration  and  translation  appears  also  in  Rogers,  Cuneiform  Par¬ 
allels,  pp.  398-465. 


FIRST  AND  SECOND  DYNASTIES 


89 


sides  I  made  arable  land;  much  grain  I  garnered 
upon  it.  Lasting  water  I  provided  for  the  land 
of  Sumer  and  Accad.  The  land  of  Sumer  and 
Accad,  its  separated  peoples  I  united,  with 
blessings  and  abundance  I  endowed  them,  in 
peaceful  dwellings  I  made  them  to  live.”1  This 
was  no  idle  promise  made  to  the  people  before 
the  union  of  Sumer  and  Accad  under  the 
hegemony  of  Babylon,  but  the  actual  accom¬ 
plishment  of  a  man  who  knew  how  to  knit  to 
himself  and  his  royal  house  the  hearts  of  the 
people  of  a  conquered  land.  There  is  a  world 
of  wisdom  in  the  deeds  of  this  old  king.  No 
work  could  possibly  have  been  performed  by 
him  which  would  bring  greater  blessing  than 
the  building  of  a  canal  by  which  a  nearly 
rainless  land  could  be  supplied  with  abundant 
water.  After  making  the  canal,  Hammurapi 
followed  the  example  of  his  predecessors  in 
Babylonia  and  carried  out  extensive  building- 
operations  in  various  parts  of  the  land.  On 
all  sides  we  find  evidences  of  his  efforts  in  this 
work.  In  Babylon  itself  he  erected  a  great 
granary  for  the  storing  of  wheat  against  times 
of  famine — a  work  of  mercy  as  well  as  of  ne¬ 
cessity,  which  would  find  prompt  recognition 
among  Oriental  peoples  then  as  now.  The 
temples  to  the  sun  god  in  Larsa  and  in  Sippar 

1  The  Louvre  Inscription,  Col.  I,  1— II,  10.  See,  for  full  references 
to  the  original  texts,  Jensen  in  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  iii,  part  i,  p.  123, 
and  compare  also  translation  by  Winckler  ( Geschichte ,  p.  64).  King, 
The  Letters  and  Inscriptions  of  Hammurabi ,  ii,  188-191. 


90  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


were  rebuilt  by  him;  the  walls  of  the  latter  city 
were  reconstructed  “like  a  great  mountain” — to 
use  his  own  phrase — and  the  city  was  enriched  by 
the  construction  of  a  new  canal.  The  great  tem¬ 
ples  of  E-sagila  in  Babylon  and  E-zida  in  the 
neighboring  Borsippa  showed  in  increased  size 
and  in  beauty  the  influence  of  his  labors.  There 
is  evidence,  also,  that  he  built  for  himself  a 
palace  at  the  site  now  marked  by  the  ruin  of 
Kalwadha,  near  Baghdad. 

But  these  buildings  are  only  external  evidences 
of  the  great  work  wrought  in  this  long  reign  for 
civilization.  The  best  of  the  culture  of  the  an¬ 
cient  Sumerians  was  brought  into  Babylon,  and 
there  carefully  conserved.  What  this  meant  to 
the  centuries  that  came  after  is  shown  clearly  in 
the  later  inscriptions.  To  Babylon  the  later 
kings  of  Assyria  look  constantly  as  to  the  real 
center  of  culture  and  civilization.  No  Assyrian 
king  is  content  with  Nineveh  and  its  glories, 
great  though  these  were  in  later  days;  his  great¬ 
est  glory  came  when  he  could  call  himself  king 
of  Babylon,  and  perform  the  symbolic  act  of 
taking  hold  of  the  hands  of  Bel-Marduk. 
Nineveh  was  the  center  of  a  kingdom  of  war¬ 
riors,  Babylon  the  abode  of  scholars;  and  the 
wellspring  of  all  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  work 
of  Hammurapi. 

But  if  the  kings  of  Assyria  looked  to  Babylon 
with  longing  eyes,  yet  more  did  later  kings  in 
the  city  of  Babylon  itself  look  back  to  the  days 


FT  Pi  ST  AND  SECOND  DYNASTIES 


91 


of  Hammurapi  as  the  golden  age  of  their  his¬ 
tory.  Nabopolassar  and  Nebuchadrezzar  ac¬ 
knowledged  his  position  in  the  most  flattering 
way,  for  they  imitated  in  their  inscriptions  the 
very  words  and  phrases  in  which  he  had  de¬ 
scribed  his  building,  and,  not  satisfied  with  this, 
even  copied  the  exact  form  of  his  tablets  and 
the  style  of  their  writing.  In  building  his  plans 
were  followed,  and  in  rule  and  administration 
his  methods  were  imitated.  His  works  and  his 
words  entitle  him  to  rank  as  the  real  founder 
of  Babylon. 

When  the  long  reign  was  ended  the  son  of 
Hammurapi,  by  name  Samsu-iluna  (2087-2049 
B.  C.),  entered  into  his  father’s  labors,  and 
apparently  without  protest  or  serious  difficulty 
in  the  beginning.  The  simple  record  of  his  first 
year  is  in  the  words:  “The  year  in  which  King 
Samsu-iluna,  by  the  faithful  command  of  Mar- 
duk,  exercised  dominion  over  the  lands.”1  The 
text  is  in  the  ancient  Sumerian  speech  and  the 
word  kurkurra  =  lands  probably  still  retains  its 
ancient  signification,2  and  applies  to  the  ter¬ 
ritories  or  dominions  outside  the  proper  home¬ 
land  of  Sumer  and  Accad.  To  the  latter  the 
date  line  of  the  second  year  applies  in  the  words: 
“The  year  in  which  he  established  the  freedom 
of  Sumer  and  Accad.”  There  is  no  hint  in 

1  See  date  line  for  first  year  of  Samsu-iluna,  Schorr,  Urkunden  des 
altbabylonischen  Zivil -  und  Prozessrechts,  p.  594.  Compare  also  the 
references  in  Kins.  Hammurabi,  iii,  pp.  241,  ff. 

2  See  above,  p.  5. 


92  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


either  of  these  that  he  felt  compelled  to  carry  on 
any  campaigns  for  the  establishment  of  his 
authority,  though  a  threat  of  force  may  well  be 
presupposed.  The  meaning  may  be  that  during 
his  first  year,  while  he  made  sure  of  his  control 
over  the  outer  territories,  the  homeland  of  Sumer 
and  Accad  was  under  some  sort  of  martial  law, 
and  that  in  the  second  year  the  civil  liberties, 
under  the  Hammurapi  code,  were  fully  restored. 
In  any  case  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  the  king’s 
authority  was  fully  established  in  his  whole 
realm,  for  six  years  follow  which  were  remem¬ 
bered  only1  as  crowded  with  works  of  peace.  In 
two  of  them  he  dug  canals,  following  the  long 
line  of  precedents  set  by  the  kings  of  former 
days,  while  others  were  signalized  by  gifts  of 
golden  votive  statues  of  himself  before  the  god 
Shamash  in  Ebabbar  and  for  Marduk  in  Esagila, 
or  by  the  adornment  of  Marduk’s  throne  in  the 
same  temple,  and  in  yet  another  he  set  up  a 
bronze  stand  depicting  “mountains  and  rivers 
bringing  fulness  and  overflow  in  their  place.”2 

In  the  ninth  year  the  peaceful  calm  was 
rudely  shattered,  and  for  six  years  there  is 
neither  digging  of  canals,  nor  adornment  of  the 
cultus,  but  marching  men,  and  waving  spear, 
and  the  destructive  torch.  We  know  but  the 
meager  facts  concerning  the  place  where  the 
wars  were  waged,  and  in  some  cases  the  issue 


1  See  the  date  lines  as  given  in  Schorr,  l.  c. 

2  Date  line  for  the  eighth  year.  Schorr,  l.  c. 


FIRST  AND  SECOND  DYNASTIES  93 

of  them  in  a  general  way,  while  in  others  we 
must  depend  upon  inference. 

The  storm  of  war  broke  first  in  an  invasion 
by  Kassite  hordes,  whom  the  king  met  success¬ 
fully,  as  we  may  justly  infer.  This  was  no 
light  matter.  These  same  Kassites  would  later 
overrun  the  whole  country,  as  we  shall  soon  see, 
and  give  it  a  new  ruling  class.  To  have  pre¬ 
vented  such  a  consummation  at  this  time  and 
to  preserve  his  dynasty  was  a  military  achieve¬ 
ment  of  no  mean  quality,  though  it  was  de¬ 
fensive  rather  than  offensive.  But  the  very 
next  year  put  his  aggressive  qualities  to  the 
proof.  The  date  line  is  provokingly  brief  and 
colorless,  as  they  are  wont  to  be.  It  records 
simply  that  in  his  tenth  year  the  king  overcame 
the  hordes  of  Idamaraz,  and  to  this  other  date 
lines  on  documents  add  the  more  interesting 
intelligence  that  Emutbal,  Erech,  and  Isin  fell 
before  the  king.  Now  Emutbal  was  the  home¬ 
land  of  Rim-Sin’s  dynasty,  as  we  have  seen  be¬ 
fore.  Hammurapi  had  not  destroyed,  but  only 
abridged  the  power  of  Rim-Sin,  who  still  re¬ 
tained  Erech  and  Isin,  and  was  also  still  acknowl¬ 
edged  as  the  ruler  of  Larsa  up  to  now.  This 
was  the  end  of  his  career  and  probably  also  of 
his  life,  for  a  Chronicle1  has  preserved  in.  broken 
words  that  it  was  Samsu-iluna  who  overcame 
Rim-Sin  and  either  captured  (?)  or  burnt  (?) 

1  Chronicle  concerning  Early  Babylonian  Rulers,  Obverse  lines 
13-17.  King,  Chronicles,  etc.,  ii,  p.  18. 


94  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

“him  alive  in  the  palace.”  So  ended  the  work 
of  a  man  who  had  come  closely  to  making  an 
empire  with  a  ruling  house  stock.  The  virile 
western  Semitic  race  had  been  too  much  for  him. 

Though  the  resourceful  and  able  Rim-Sin  had 
disappeared  Samsu-iluna  had  other  great  issues 
of  war  to  meet,  before  he  returned  to  the  devel¬ 
opment  of  his  country.  He  tore  down  the  walls 
of  Ur  and  Erech,1  as  a  stroke  of  preventive  war, 
and  overthrew  all  the  lands  which  had  risen 
against  him,  and  destroyed  as  well  Kisurra  and 
Sabum.  After  this  there  is  much  less  of  war 
and  more  of  the  victories  of  peace,  though  the 
twelfth  year  provided  an  outbreak  of  civil  war 
in  Accad,  where  a  pretender  had  roused  the 
people  to  rebel.  He  was  crushed,  and  there  are 
no  further  hints  of  any  rebellions  against  an 
authority  too  strong  and  uncompromising  to 
be  met. 

And  now  began  in  full  measure  the  process  of 
restoration  of  that  which  war  had  destroyed. 
The  walls  of  Isin  rise  from  their  ruins,  the  de¬ 
fenses,  which  were  “like  the  heavens  in  beau¬ 
tiful  Sippar,”  are  restored,  nay,  even  the  fortress 
walls  in  Emutbal  are  rebuilt.  Samsu-iluna  has 
gathered  all  these  within  his  empire,  and  has  no 
fear  that  they  will  be  able  to  break  loose  from 

1  Date  line  for  eleventh  year,  Schorr,  l.  c.  Compare  with  this  King, 
Hammurabi,  iii,  p.  244,  footnote  83,  who  describes  the  doubt  that 
then  existed  as  to  whether  this  date  line  meant  that  the  walls  were 
destroyed,  or  rebuilt,  and  decides  in  favor  of  the  latter.  The  evidence 
now  seems  to  me  to  point  to  the  former. 


FIRST  AND  SECOND  DYNASTIES  95 

it.  He  had  proved  himself  a  conqueror,  he  would 
now  demonstrate  that  he  could  rule,  as  his 
father  had  done,  that  which  the  sword  and  spear 
and  battle  axe  had  won. 

He  devoted  most  of  the  remaining  years  to 
restorations  of  temples,  and  to  the  making  of 
costly  images  or  adornments  for  them. 

We  know  little  of  his  relations  to  other  powers. 
His  borders  were  coterminous  on  the  north  with 
Assyria,  but  we  do  not  know  what  were  his 
relations  with  the  new  kingdom  which  had 
doubtless  gathered  strength  since  the  day  when 
Hammurapi  was  its  acknowledged  suzerain.  On 
the  south  he  was  neighbor  to  the  country  of 
the  Sea  Land  in  which  a  new  dynasty  had 
arisen  under  the  rule  of  Iluma-ilu.  With  this 
man  he  tried  conclusions,1  but  apparently  with 
no  great  success,  for  Iluma-ilu  remained  to 
plague  his  son  in  the  next  reign.  The  relative 
amount  of  failure  in  this  is  small  in  comparison 
with  the  great  successes  everywhere  else.  It 
was  indeed  a  great  reign. 

It  was  a  rich  and  strong  kingdom  to  which 
came  his  son  Abeshu  (Ebishum)  (2049-2021 
B.  C.),  and  he  would  appear  to  have  been  able 
to  hold  it,  if  not  to  extend  greatly  its  influence. 
The  date  lines  which  have  survived  from  his 
years  cannot  be  set  in  chronological  order,  and 
we  are  forced  to  regard  hjs  reign  as  a  whole 

1  Chronicles  concerning  Early  Babylonian  Rulers,  Reverse  lines 
1-6.  King,  Chronicles ,  ii,  pp.  19,  20.  Also  in  Rogers,  Cuneiform 
Parallels,  p.  207. 


96  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


and  not  in  its  orderly  development.  It  was  not 
a  reign  of  conquest  and  of  extension,  though  the 
Chronicle1  is  able  to  report  that  he  set  out  to 
conquer  Iluma-ilu,  and  that  “his  heart  moved 
him  to  dam  the  Tigris,  and  he  dammed  the 
Tigris,  but  he  caught  not  Iluma-ilu.” 

As  to  his  other  works  we  know  that  he  worked 
upon  the  country’s  canalization,  and  made  his 
contributions  to  the  enrichment  of  its  temples. 
He  is,  however,  a  colorless  figure  against  the 
greater  background  of  his  predecessors.  Per¬ 
haps  the  common  people  suffered  less,  and 
gained  more  during  his  inglorious  twenty-eight 
years  than  in  the  period  of  splendor  which  had 
preceded  his  day. 

The  times  were  stable  enough  to  continue  the 
same  family  on  the  throne,  and  Ammiditana 
(2021-1984  B.  C.),  son  of  the  last  king,  enjoyed 
the  long  reign  of  thirty-seven  years.  It  was  an 
even  more  peaceful  time  than  his  father  had 
experienced.  Not  until  the  seventeenth  year  of 
his  reign  is  the  peaceful  series  broken,  but  in 
that  year  he  overcame  a  Sumerian  rebel,  by 
name  Arakhab.  In  his  last  year  he  destroyed  a 
wall  at  Isin,  which  had  been  erected  by  the 
people  of  Damik-ilishu.  All  the  other  years  of 
an  uneventful  reign  were  given  over  to  the 
common  acts  of  religious  piety  or  to  the  useful 
arts  of  life.  In  still  more  peaceful  fashion  lived 

1  Chronicle  concerning  Early  Babylonian  Rulers.  Reverse  lines  7-9. 
King,  Chronicles,  ii,  p.  21.  Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels,  p.  207. 


FIRST  AND  SECOND  DYNASTIES 


97 


his  son  and  successor,  Ammisaduga  (1984-1963 
B.  C.),  of  whom  no  war  is  recorded,  but  who 
dug  one  canal,  and  made  rich  gifts  to  the  tem¬ 
ples.  His  son  Samsuditana  (1963-1932  B.  C.) 
had  another  peaceful  reign,  carried  on  in  the 
same  way  save  for  one  serious  shock.  The 
Chronicle1  makes  only  this  single  statement : 
“ Against  Samsuditana  the  men  of  the  land  of 
Khatti  marched  against  the  land  of  Akkad. ” 
Nothing  like  this  had  been  known  for  centuries 
while  the  Amorites  were  making  a  great  empire. 
The  Khatti,  or  Hittites,  as  they  were  later 
popularly  known,  had  the  center  of  their  vigor¬ 
ous  empire  in  Cappadocia  at  a  city  called  then 
Khatti,  but  now  bearing  the  name  of  Boghaz- 
koi.  Out  of  these  distant  mountain  fastnesses 
they  poured  into  Accad  with  force  enough  at 
least  to  plunder.  We  do  not  know  how  long 
they  remained  nor  how  great  were  their  depre¬ 
dations,  but  the  city  of  Babylon  must  have  been 
severely  handled,  for  from  it  they  must  have 
carried  away  images  of  the  god  Marduk  and  his 
consort  Sarpanitum,  which  a  later  king  of  Baby¬ 
lon  was  to  restore  with  much  ceremony  to  their 
shrines.2  This  Hittite  invasion  probably  was  not 
the  immediate,  though  it  may  well  have  been  the 
proximate  cause  of  the  fall  of  the  dynasty.  It 

1  Chronicle  concerning  Early  Babylonian  Rulers.  Reverse  line  10. 
King,  Chronicles ,  ii,  p.  22. 

2  V  R.  33.  Jensen,  Keilinschriftliche  Bibliothek,  iii,  part  i,  pp.  134,  ff. 
Compare  King,  Chronicles,  i,  pp.  148,  149.  See  below,  p.  10(3,  for  the 
story  of  the  restoration. 


98  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


had  presumably  weakened  the  defenses  of  the 
empire  so  greatly  that  when  the  Hittites  stag¬ 
gered  away  into  the  north  with  their  booty  the 
way  was  opened  for  another  people  to  possess 
the  cities  which  Hammurapi  and  his  son  had 
welded  into  a  great  and  partially  civilized  power. 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  KASSITE  DYNASTY 

At  about  the  year  1758  ends  the  long  period 
of  stable  peace,  during  which  Babylonia  was 
ruled  by  kings  of  native  blood.  This  land  of 
great  fertility  had  tempted  often  enough  the 
hardy  mountaineers  of  Elam,  even  as  in  later 
centuries  the  fair  plains  of  northern  Italy  were 
coveted  by  the  Teutons,  who  surveyed  them 
from  the  mountains  above.  As  long  as  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  Hammurapi  and  the  other  founders  of 
the  united  kingdom  of  Babylonia  remained  the 
country  was  able  to  defy  any  invader.  But  the 
development  of  the  arts,  the  progress  of  civiliza¬ 
tion,  and  the  increase  of  trade  and  commerce 
had  weakened  the  military  arm.  Babylon  was 
becoming  like  Tyre  of  later  days,  whose  mer¬ 
chants  were  always  willing  to  pay  tribute  to  a 
foreign  foe  rather  than  run  the  risk  of  a  war 
which  might  injure  their  trade.  At  this  time, 
however,  Babylon  still  possessed  patriotism  and 
national  pride,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  believe 
that  the  foreigner  seated  himself  upon  the  proud 
throne  of  the  Babylonians  without  difficulty. 
It  is  indeed  unlikely  that  the  conquest  of  Baby¬ 
lon  was  achieved  by  a  definitely  organized  army, 

99 


100  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


led  by  a  commander  who  purposed  making  him¬ 
self  king  of  Babylon,  while  still  continuing  to 
reign  in  his  own  country.  It  is  rather  the  mi¬ 
gration  of  a  strong,  fresh  people  which  here  con¬ 
fronts  us.  This  people  is  called  the  Kasshu,  and 
their  previous  seat  was  in  the  rough  mountain 
country  east  of  the  Tigris,  but  it  is  difficult  to 
localize  them  more  perfectly.  It  seems  probable 
that  they  were  racially  identical  with  the  people 
dwelling  along  the  banks  of  the  Zagros,  who 
became  famous  in  later  times  under  the  name 
of  the  Kossseans1  (K oooaloi),  and  it  has  even 
been  suggested  that  they  are,  in  some  way,  to 
be  connected  with  another  people,  the  Kissians 
(K iaaioi),  who  were  at  one  time  settled  in  the 
country  of  Susiana,2  but  are  also  believed  to  be 
mentioned  in  Cappadocia.3  Their  language  was 

1  Delitzsch  believes  that  these  are  all  one  people  ( Die  Sprache  der 
Kossaer,  p.  4).  But  see  for  reasons  to  the  contrary  Oppert  ( Zcitschrift 
fur  Assyriologie,  iii,  pp.  421,  ff.,  and  v,  pp.  106,  f.)  and  also  Lehmann 
(ibid.,  vii,  pp.  328,  ff. ;  Zeitschrift  der  Deutsche  Morgenldndische  Gesell., 
1895,  p.  306;  Zwei  Hauptprobl.,  pp.  211,  212).  Lehmann  identifies  the 
Kasshu  with  the  Kissians,  and  against  this  view  may  be  quoted  Rost, 
Unter  suchungen,  pp.  43,  44.  The  name  Kassite,  which  we  have  here 
adopted,  is  colorless  and  leaves  the  question  undecided  until  more 
light  has  been  obtained.  It  was  proposed  by  Sayce  ( Records  of  the 
Past,  new  series  i,  p.  16),  but  he,  nevertheless,  identifies  them  with  the 
Kossseans  (ibid.,  note  7).  Kassite  is  now  in  general, use  (for  example, 
by  Winckler,  Geschichte,  pp.  78,  79,  and  Hilprecht  (Cassite),  Old  Baby¬ 
lonian  Inscriptions,  vol.  i,  part  i,  p.  28;  McCurdy  (Kasshites),  History, 
Prophecy,  and  the  Monuments,  i,  p.  143). 

2  Tieyovrai  6e  /cat  K iamoi  oi  Zovclol.  Strabo,  Geographica,  xv,  2  (ed- 
Augustus  Meineke,  vol.  iii,  p.  1014).  Sennacherib  (Taylor  Cylinder, 
col.  i,  line  64,  tr.  by  Rogers  in  Records  of  the  Past,  new  series,  vi,  p.  86) 
found  the  Kashshi  in  the  Kosssean  mountains.  Compare  Billerbeck, 
Das  Sandschak  Suleimania,  Leipzig,  1898,  p.  126,  who  locates  them 
in  the  “ Luti-Bagtsche  Bergland.” 

3  Ptolemseus,  v,  6,  6,  quoted  by  Rost,  Unter suchungen,  p.  44. 


THE  KASSITE  DYNASTY 


101 


neither  Semitic  nor  Indo-European,  neither  does 
it  show  any  connection  with  Sumerian.  In  their 
own  country  they  were  closely  associated  with 
Semitic  peoples,  such  as  the  Lulubi,  while  press¬ 
ing  behind  them  were  the  Arians  seeking  new 
homes  and  opportunities,  and  before  them  were 
the  great  prizes  of  Sumer  and  Accad.  In  the 
present  state  of  our  knowledge  we  are  not 
justified  in  identifying  them  positively  either  as 
to  race  or  language,  though  it  is  interesting  to 
observe  that  some  of  the  Kassite  names  bear 
most  striking  resemblance  to  those  of  the 
Hittites  and  especially  to  those  of  the  stock  of 
Mitanni,1  though  the  Mittanian  language  is  not 
Hittite.  It  will  be  safer  simply  to  call  them 
Kassites,  and  thus  leave  their  racial  affinity  an 
open  question.  *  Certain  indications  there  are 
which  seem  to  show  that  they  did  not  come 
direct  from  their  ancient  home  into  Babylonia, 
but  were  settled  first  in  the  far  south,  near  the 
Persian  Gulf.  They  entered  Babylon  probabty 
as  roving  bands,  then  in  increased  numbers  over¬ 
ran  the  land  and  gained  control,  so  that  they  set¬ 
up  a  foreign  dynasty  in  place  of  the  previous 
native  Babylonian  rule. 

Concerning  this  Kassite  dynasty  our  knowl¬ 
edge  is  very  unsatisfactory.  The  Babylonian 
historians  preserved  in  their  King  List  the  names 
of  all  these  kings,  but  unhappily  this  list,  in  the 

1  See,  for  example,  the  list  in  Clay,  Personal  Names  of  the  Cassite 
Period  (Yale  Oriental  Series,  i),  pp.  44,  45. 


102  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


form  in  which  we  possess  it,  is  badly  broken  and 
some  of  the  names  are  lost.  The  list  assigns  to 
this  dynasty  five  hundred  and  seventy-six  years 
and  nine  months.1  On  this  representation  the 
Kassites  must  have  ruled  from  about  1757  B.  C. 
to  about  1181  B.  C.  During  this  long  period 
they  naturally  did  not  remain  foreigners,  but 
were  rapidly  assimilated  to  Babylonian  culture 
as  well  as  to  Babylonian  usages.  They  naturally 
wrote  inscriptions,  as  their  predecessors  had 
done;  they  built  buildings  and  worshiped  the 
Babylonian  gods.  But  their  rule  did  not  bring 
forth  so  rich  a  fruit  as  Hammurapi’s  had  done, 
and  the  records  that  have  come  down  to  us  are 
much  more  fragmentary.  Of  only  one  king  in 
this  dynasty  do  we  possess  any  long  historical 
inscription,  and  his  name  does  not  appear  upon 
the  King  List,  but  stood  where  the  list  is  broken 
beyond  hope  of  restoration.  The  correspondence 
of  some  of  the  kings  with  kings  of  Egypt  has 
been  preserved,  and  by  it  a  most  welcome  light 
is  shed  upon  the  obscure  period.  We  possess 
only  contract  tablets  of  other  kings,  the  num¬ 
ber  of  which  will  be  largely  increased  by  the 
publication  of  tablets  that  have  been  found  at 
Nippur. 

To  us  their  names  convey  no  real  meaning. 
They  are  only  shadows  of  men.  The  name  of  the 
first  king,  called  Gandish,  also  appears  in  a  vo¬ 
tive  tablet  under  the  form  Gande,  and  in  still 


1  See  above,  voi.  i,  pp.  517—523. 


THE  KASSITE  DYNASTY 


103 


another  little  fragment  as  Gaddash.1  He  gives 
honor  to  the  great  god  Ellil,  and  wrote  his 
name  and  titles  on  the  door  sockets  set 
up  k>y  former  Babylonian  kings.  But  his 
name  is  not  written  in  the  same  skillful  man¬ 
ner  as  of  former  worthies.  The  rude  work¬ 
manship  is  eloquent  of  the  change  which  had 
come  through  a  ruder  race.  The  world’s  progress 
was  put  back  when  the  Kassites  came  to  rule  in 
Babylon. 

But  though  we  know  so  little  about  this  first 
king  of  the  dynasty,  we  know  even  less  about  his 
followers  for  a  long  time.  Their  names  have 
indeed  been  preserved  as: 

Agum  I  (1741-1719  B.  C.). 

Kashtiliash  I  (1719-1697  B.  C.). 

Ush-shi  (1697-1689  B.  C.). 

Abi-rattash  (1689-?). 

Tazzi-gurumash. 

These  kings  fill  a  blank  space  in  the  history 
which  had  been  all  aglow  with  life  and  color  in 
the  days  of  the  first  dynasty. 

After  the  sixth  name  the  Babylonian  King 
List  is  hopelessly  broken,  and  no  names  can  be 
read  for  a  considerable  space.  It  seems  probable 
that  Tashzi-gurumash  may  be  the  same  as  the 
king  from  whom  Agum  II  claims  descent.  If 

1  The  name  of  this  king  is  also  abbreviated  into  Gande  (Hilprecht, 
Old  Babylonian  Inscriptions,  i,  part  i,  pp.  28,  ff.),  and  even  into  Gan 
{ibid.,  p.  30).  It  also  appears  in  the  form  Gaddash  on  an  inscription 
published  by  Pinches  ( Babylonian  and  Oriental  Record,  i,  pp.  54,  78; 
compare  Academy,  1891,  p.  221).  The  inscription  is  in  the  British 
Museum  (84-2-11,  178),  and  is  published  by  Winckler  ( U ntersuchungen , 


104  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

this  be  true,  we  may  have  found  by  this  means 
the  name  of  the  next  king  on  the  list.  There 
belonged  to  the  library  of  Ashurbanipal  a  long 
inscription* 1  in  Assyrian  characters  which  pur¬ 
ports  to  be  a  copy  of  an  inscription  of  an  early 
king  of  Babylon.  Certain  peculiarities  of  the 
Assyrian  text  make  it  much  more  probable  that 
it  is  a  translation  from  Sumerian.2  The  king 
whose  deeds  it  recounts  was  Agum  II.  In  this 
text  he  calls  himself  the  son  of  Tashshigurumash. 
It  is  very  tempting  to  connect  this  Tashshiguru¬ 
mash  with  the  sixth  name  in  the  list  of  kings, 
and  this  is  probably  correct. 

Whether  Agum  II  was  the  next  name  in  the 
list  or  not,  it  seems  almost  certain  that  he  must 
have  belonged  to  this  same  period  and  his  name 
must  have  followed  very  shortly  upon  the  list. 
In  his  inscription,  after  giving  all  his  connec¬ 
tions  of  blood  and  all  his  ties  to  the  gods,  he 
sets  forth  the  lands  of  his  rule  in  these  words: 
“King  of  Kasshu  and  Accad;  king  of  the  broad 
land  of  Babylon;  who  caused  much  people  to 
settle  in  the  land  of  Ashnunnak;  king  of  Padan 
and  Alvan;  king  of  the  land  Guti,  wide  extended 
peoples;  a  king  who  rules  the  Four  Quarters  of 

p.  156,  No.  6).  Also  Hilprecht,  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie,  vii,  p.  309, 
note  4,  and  Old  Babylonian  Inscriptions,  i,  part,  i,  p.  30,  n.  3. 

1  This  text  was  first  published  II  R.  38,  No.  2,  and  repeated  in  more 
perfect  form  V  R.  33.  It  was  collated  by  Delitzsch  and  then  trans¬ 
lated  in  Kossder,  pp.  55,  ff.  It  was  again  collated  by  Bezold  and, 
upon  his  contributions,  translated  by  Jensen  ( Keilinschrift .  Bibl.,  iii, 
part  i,  pp.  134,  ff.).  For  further  literature  see  Bezold  ( Ueberblick ,  p.  57). 

2  Winckler  ( Geschichte ,  p.  79). 


THE  KASSTTE  DYNASTY 


105 


the  World  am  I.”  This  is  a  remarkable  list  of 
titles.  It  is  at  once  noteworthy  that  the  titles 
do  not  follow  the  usual  Babylonian  order. 
Usually  a  Babylonian  king  would  write  the  title 
in  this  fashion:  “King  of  Babylon,  king  of  the 
Four  Quarters  of  the  World,  king  of  Sumer  and 
Accad,  king  of  Kasshu.”  The  titles  “king  of 
Padan  and  Alvan,  king  of  Guti,  etc.,”  would 
hardly  have  been  used  in  this  form  at  all.  The 
Babylonian  kings  would  seem  to  feel  that  they 
could  not  bear  direct  rule  over  a  land  lying  out¬ 
side  of  the  rule  of  the  Babylonian  gods  who  alone 
could  give  the  title  to  a  king  in  Babylon.  Rather 
would  such  a  king  have  called  himself  “King  of 
the  kings  of  Padan,  Alvan,  and  Guti,”  which 
lands  he  would  thus  rule  through  a  deputy  ap¬ 
pointed  by  himself.  It  is  to  be  observed  that 
later  the  Kassite  kings  conformed  very  carefully 
to  this  custom.1  That  Agum  II  violated  it  is 
another  proof  that  he  belongs  to  the  earlier 
kings  of  the  dynasty,  in  a  time  before  the  Kass- 
ites  had  accommodated  themselves  to  the  cus¬ 
toms  of  their  conquered  land. 

But  the  titles  of  Agum  II  serve  another  and 
larger  purpose  for  us  than  the  furnishing  of  a 
confirmation  of  the  position  we  have  assigned 
him  in  the  dynasty;  they  furnish  us  with  a  view 
of  the  extent  of  territory  governed  from  Babylon 
during  his  reign.  His  kingdom  covers  all  Baby- 

1  These  distinctions  are  due  to  the  keenness  of  Winekler  (Geschichte, 
pp.  80,  81). 


ion  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


Ionia,  both  north  and  south,  which  belonged  to 
the  ancient  empire  of  Hammurapi;  but  it  far 
exceeded  these  bounds.  Agum  II  still  continued 
to  rule  the  land  of  Kasshu,  and  the  land  of 
Ashnunnak.  Guti  also,  a  land  of  which  we  have 
heard  nothing  since  the  days  of  Lasirab,  was  also 
subject  to  him,  as  well  as  Padan,  the  land  of 
Mesopotamia  between  the  Euphrates  and  the 
Balikh,  and  Alvan  (modern  Holwan ),  which  was 
contiguous  to  Guti  and  lay  in  the  mountains  of 
Kurdistan.  As  there  is  no  indication  in  the  in¬ 
scriptions  of  the  previous  dynasties  that  so  large 
a  territory  had  been  added  to  Babylonia  since 
the  days  of  Hammurapi,  we  are  shut  up  to  the 
view  that  the  Kassites  had  themselves  achieved 
it.  This  would  make  them  greater  conquerors 
than  even  the  mighty  founder  of  Babylon’s 
greatness. 

The  major  part  of  this  inscription  of  Agum  II 
deals  with  the  restoration  to  Babylon  of  some 
gods  which  had  been  carried  away  in  a  previous 
raid  upon  the  country.  Agum  II  says  that  he 
sent  an  embassy  to  the  far  away  land  of  Khani,1 
which  was  probably  located  in  the  mountain 
country  east  of  the  Tigris,  and  south  of  the 
Lower  Zab,  to  bring  back  to  Babylon  the  statues 

1  The  location  of  Khani  is  now  fairly  well  settled.  Asshurnazirpal 
(I  R.  28,  col.  i,  18,  compare  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  i,  124)  alludes  to  “Mount 
Khana  on  the  side  of  the  lands  of  the  Lullumi,”  and  Billerbeck  ( Sanschak 
Sul.,  p.  8)  would  identify  this  mountain  with  the  “Karadagh  oder  das 
Bergland  zwischen  diesem  und  dem  Hamrin.”  See  further,  Sayce, 
Proceedings  Soc.  Bib.  Arch.,  January,  1899,  pp.  13,  ff.,  who  locates 
“the  country  of  Khana  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Babylonian  frontier.” 


THE  KASSITE  DYNASTY  107 

of  Marduk  and  Zarpanit.  In  order  to  under¬ 
stand  this  move  on  his  part  it  must  be  remem¬ 
bered  that,  from  the  Babylonian  point  of  view, 
there  could  be  no  legitimate  king  in  Babylon 
unless  he  had  been  appointed  to  his  rule  by 
Marduk,  patron  god  and  real  ruler  of  the  city. 
But  Marduk  had  been  carried  away  by  the  peo¬ 
ple  of  Khani.  It  was  all  important,  therefore, 
for  the  stability  of  the  throne  that  this  god,  at 
least,  be  immediately  restored.  If  Agum  had 
had  sufficient  troops  at  his  command,  he  would 
probably  have  taken  the  god  by  force  from  his 
captors;  as  Nebuchadrezzar  I  and  Ashurbanipal 
did  in  later  times.  He  did  not  do  this,  but  sent 
an  “embassy.”  In  this  expression  we  may  see 
an  euphemism  for  the  purchase  or  ransom  of  the 
gods  by  actual  payment  of  gold  or  silver.  These 
gods  formed  part  of  the  loot  which  had  been 
carried  off  during  the  Hittite  invasion  in  the 
reign  of  Samsuditana.  The  destructive  charac¬ 
ter  of  this  Hittite  raid  is  evidenced  vividly  by  the 
words  of  Agum,  who  adds  to  the  story  of  their 
restoration  the  statement  that  he  placed  them 
in  the  temple  of  Shamash,  and  provided  them 
with  all  the  necessities  for  their  worship,  because 
Marduk’s  own  temple,  E-sagila,  had  to  be  re¬ 
stored  before  it  was  fit  for  his  occupancy.  This 
ruinous  state  of  Babylon’s  great  state  temple 
points  backward  to  a  period  of  great  weakness, 
to  the  period  when  Babylon  was  tottering  from 
the  proud  position  to  which  Hammurapi  had 


108  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


brought  it,  and  was  already  an  easy  prey  for 
the  foreigner. 

The  remaining  lines  of  this  important  inscrip¬ 
tion  deal  with  temple  restorations,  and  thus  add 
the  name  of  Agum  II  to  the  list  of  great  builders 
who  have  already  passed  in  review  before  us. 
No  other  events  in  his  reign  are  known  to  us, 
nor  is  its  length  preserved.  The  indications 
which  remain  would  seem  to  show  that  he  must 
have  reigned  long  and  peacefully. 

After  the  reign  of  Agum  II  there  is  a  sharp 
break  in  the  chain  of  our  information  concerning 
the  histor}^  of  this  dynasty.  It  will  be  necessary 
to  make  clear  the  reason  for  this  break,  and  to 
set  forth  briefly  the  means  adopted  for  the 
partial  repair  of  the  breach. 

In  giving  the  names  of  the  kings  of  this  dy¬ 
nasty  from  Gandish  to  Agum  II  we  have  simply 
followed  the  lists  made  by  the  Babylonian  schol¬ 
ars  in  ancient  times.  If  the  list  were  perfectly 
continued,  we  should  have  an  easy  task  in  fol¬ 
lowing  out  the  kings  of  the  dynasty,  and  in 
setting  forth  something  of  their  activity  by 
means  of  other  historical  material.  Unhappily 
the  tablet  containing  the  list  is  broken  off  just 
after  the  name  of  Tashshigurumash.  The  list  is 
then  resumed  after  some  distance  with  the  name 
of  the  twenty-third  king,  and  is  thence  con¬ 
tinued  to  the  name  of  the  thirty-sixth  king.1 

1  For  details,  see  the  Chronological  tables  and  the  discussion  ac¬ 
companying  them,  vol.  i,  pp.  517-523. 


THE  KASSITE  DYNASTY 


109 


There  are  thus  preserved  the  names  of  twenty 
kings,  to  which  we  may  add  that  of  Agum  II, 
making  twenty-one  in  all.  At  the  bottom  of 
the  list  it  is  stated  that  there  were  thirty-six 
kings  in  the  dynasty,  and  that  the  sum  of  the 
years  of  their  reigns  was  five  hundred  and 
seventy-six  years  and  nine  months.  For  the 
completion  of  the  list  we  therefore  need  the 
names  of  fifteen  kings.  How  many  of  these 
names  can  be  obtained?  In  the  present  state  of 
investigation  it  is  safe  to  say  that  of  these 
fifteen  missing  names  twelve  have  been  secured 
with  reasonable  certainty,  and  for  the  most  part 
they  can  be  arranged  accurately  in  order  in  the 
dynasty.  These  names  have  been  secured  in 
some  instances  from  contract  tablets  dated  in 
their  reigns;  in  others  from  their  own  inscrip¬ 
tions;  in  others  from  the  so-called  Synchronistic 
History — an  original  Assyrian  document  giving 
very  briefly  the  early  relations  between  Baby¬ 
lonia  and  Assyria — in  others  from  letters  and 
dispatches  which  passed  between  the  courts  of 
Babylonia,  Assyria,  and  Egypt. 

Before  proceeding  with  the  history  of  the  re¬ 
maining  kings  of  this  dynasty  it  will  be  necessary 
to  say  something  by  way  of  preface  of  the  con¬ 
ditions  of  political  life  prevailing  elsewhere,  in 
order  to  the  better  understanding  of  the  facts 
which  we  possess  with  reference  to  these  reigns. 

More  than  five  hundred  years  before  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  the  Kassite  dynasty,  a  new  state, 


110  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

destined  to  a  splendid  career  of  dominion  among 
men,  was  showing  the  beginnings  of  its  life  along 
the  eastern  bank  of  the  Tigris.  The  land  of 
Assyria  in  its  original  limits  was  a  small  land 
inclosed  within  the  natural  boundaries  of  the 
Tigris,  the  Upper  and  the  Lower  Zab,  and  the 
Median  mountain  range.  Its  inhabitants  at  this 
time  were  Semites,  and  apparently  of  much 
purer  blood  than  their  relatives,  the  Babylonians, 
who  had  intermarried  with  the  Sumerians — a 
custom  afterward  continued  with  the  Kassites 
and  with  many  other  peoples.  The  chief  city  of 
this  small  Assyrian  state  was  Asshur,  in  which 
were  ruling,  at  the  period  of  the  beginning  of  the 
Kassite  dynasty,  Semitic  Patesis ,  who  were  the 
beginners  of  a  long  and  distinguished  line.  Their 
land  was  admirably  furnished  by  nature.  In  it 
lived  a  people  who  were  not  enervated  by  luxury 
nor  prostrated  in  energy  by  excessive  and  long- 
continued  heat,  but  accustomed  to  battle  with 
snowdrifts  in  the  mountains  and  to  conserve 
their  physical  force  by  its  constant  use.  It  is  no 
wonder  that  under  such  favorable  conditions  this 
people  should  have  risen  rapidly  to  power.  In 
a  short  time  we  shall  find  them  able  to  negotiate 
treaties  with  the  kings  of  Babylonia,  and  soon 
thereafter  the  main  stream  of  history  flows 
through  the  channels  they  were  now  digging. 
It  is  for  these  reasons  that  we  have  here  touched 
lightly  upon  the  beginnings  of  their  national  life. 

Two  other  lands  require  brief  mention  before 


THE  KASSTTE  DYNASTY 


111 


we  can  properly  understand  the  movement  of 
races  during  the  period  of  the  Kassite  dynasty. 

In  the  northwestern  part  of  the  great  valley 
between  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates  lay  a  small 
country  whose  two  chief  original  limits  were  set 
by  the  river  Euphrates  and  its  tributary  the 
Balikh.  In  the  Egyptian  inscriptions  of  the 
eighteenth  and  nineteenth  dynasties  it  is  called 
Naharina — that  is,  the  river  country — but  it  was 
called  Mitanni  by  its  own  kings.  How  long  a 
people  had  lived  within  its  borders  with  kings  of 
their  own  and  a  separate  national  existence  re¬ 
mains  an  enigma.  No  inscriptions  of  the  people 
of  Mitanni,  save  letters  written  to  kings  of 
Egypt,  have  been  found.  We  should  indeed 
hardly  know  of  the  land  at  all  but  for  the 
discovery  of  the  royal  archives  of  the  kings 
Amenophis  III  and  Amenophis  IV,  the  kings  of 
Egypt  who  had  diplomatic  intercourse  with  it. 
From  these  letters  and  dispatches  we  have 
learned  the  names  of  several  of  the  kings  of 
Mitanni,  among  them  Artatama,  Sutarna,  and 
Dushratta.  Their  chief  god  was  Teshup  and  the 
chief  goddess  Khepa,  both  of  whom  they  have 
in  common  with  the  Hittites.  At  the  time  when 
these  kings  were  writing  dispatches  to  the  kings 
of  Egypt  their  land  was  known  under  the  ap¬ 
pellation  of  Khanigalbat.  Between  the  kings  of 
Mitanni  and  the  kings  of  Egypt  there  were  bonds 
of  marriage,  the  kings  of  Egypt  having  married 
princesses  from  the  far  distant  “river  land.” 


112  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


The  fact  that  the  proud  kings  of  Egypt  were 
anxious  to  ally  themselves  to  the  kings  of 
Mitanni  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  land 
was  sufficiently  wealthy  or  influential  to  make  it 
worthy  of  the  attention  of  Egypt.  The  letters 
of  Mitanni  were  written  chiefly  in  the  Semitic 
language  of  Babylonia,  and  in  the  cuneiform 
characters,  with  which  we  are  familiar  in  the 
native  inscriptions.  One  of  these  letters,  how¬ 
ever,  preserved  in  the  Royal  Museum  in  Berlin1, 
is  written  in  the  language  of  Mitanni,  which  has 
thus  far  not  yielded  to  the  numerous  efforts 
made  to  decipher  it.2 

The  tongue  shows  most  clearly  a  near  rela¬ 
tionship  with  the  Caucasic  and  Elamitic  lan¬ 
guages,  with  the  latter  especially  in  its  vocabu¬ 
lary.  The  people  of  the  land,  so  far  as  appears 
at  present,  represent  an  old  settlement  who  had 
some  sort  of  life  in  their  country  before  the 
more  vigorous  although  closely  related  Hittite 
stock  began  empire  building.  What  were  the 
closer  racial  ties  of  these  original  people  of 
Mitanni  has  not  been  surely  made  out,  but  they 
would  at  least  appear  to  have  had,  at  some  time, 
an  Aryan  (Indo-European)  ruling  class  among 
them.  To  these  Aryan  rulers  we  may  ascribe 
the  Indo-European  names  of  men  and  of  gods 

1  VA.  Th.  422.  Knudtzon,  El-Amarna  Tafeln,  No.  24. 

2  Attempts  to  decipher  this  language  have  been  made  by  Sayce  ( Acad¬ 
emy ,  vol.  xxxvii,  1890,  p.  94;  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie,  v.  pp.  260-274), 
by  Jensen  ( Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie,  v,  pp.  166-208;  vi,  pp.  34-72), 
and  by  Brunnow  (ibid.,  v,  pp.  209-259).  Bork,  Mitteilungen  der  Vor- 
derasiatische  Gesellschaft,  1909,  Nos.  1  and  2. 


THE  KASSITE  DYNASTY 


113 


which  crop  out  now  and  again,  either  among  the 
Mitannians  or  among  those  whom  they  influ¬ 
enced. 

The  kingdom  of  Mitanni  must  take  its  place 
among  the  small  states  which  have  had  their 
share  in  influencing  the  progress  of  the  world, 
but  whose  own  history  we  are  unable  to  trace. 
But,  though  we  cannot  do  this,  we  may  at  least 
observe  that  it  seems  to  have  been  largely  under 
Semitic  influences,  for  its  method  of  writing  was 
borrowed  from  its  powerful  neighbors. 

The  last  land  to  which  our  attention  must  be 
diverted  before  proceeding  with  the  main  story 
is  the  land  of  Kardunyash.1  Originally  the  word 
Kardunyash  seems  to  be  applied  to  a  small  terri¬ 
tory  in  southern  Babylonia  close  to  the  Persian 
Gulf.  The  termination,  “ash”  is  Kassite,  and  it 
has  been  supposed,  with  good  reason,  that  the 
Kassites  first  settled  in  this  land  by  the  Persian 
Gulf,  and  used  it  as  a  base  from  which  to  over¬ 
run  and  conquer  Babylonia.  Whether  this  be 
true  or  not,  it  is  at  least  certain  that  the  name 
Kardunyash  comes  to  be  used  by  the  Kassite 
kings  as  a  sort  of  official  name  for  the  land  of 
Babylonia. 

We  are  now  able  to  return  to  the  Kassite  dy¬ 
nasty  after  a  long  excursus;  the  better  prepared 
to  gather  together  such  little  threads  of  informa¬ 
tion  as  link  them  with  their  neighbors. 

1  Winckler  ( U ntersuchungcn,  pp.  135,  136;  Geschiclite,  pp.  86,  87). 
For  references  to  the  Kl-Amarna  letters  from  Kardunyash  see  below. 


114  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


As  we  have  seen  above,  the  Babylonian  King 
List  is  so  broken  after  the  name  Tashshiguru- 
mash  that  some  names  are  lost.  Of  these  miss¬ 
ing  names  we  have  already  secured  the  name 
of  Agum  II. 

After  him  there  is  a  period  of  about  one  hun¬ 
dred  years  of  silence,  in  which  we  do  not  know 
the  name  of  even  one  king,  nor  yet  of  any  deed 
in  all  the  land.  At  the  end  of  this  time  we  dis¬ 
cern  very  dimly  the  figure  of  Burnaburiash  I, 
known  only  as  a  Kassite  king  who  made  a 
treaty1  with  Puzur-Ashir,  king  of  Assyria.  After 
him  there  came  apparently  Kadashman-Kharbe 
I  and  his  son  Kurigalzu  I,  and  grandson 
Melishipak  I,2  though  we  know  nothing  of  them, 
but  their  names. 

The  next  king  of  the  Kassite  dynasty  of  whom 
we  have  knowledge  is  Karaindash  I  (about  1450 
B.  C.).  Like  his  predecessors  and  successors,  he 
was  a  builder,  as  his  own  brief  words  make 
plain:  “To  Nana,  the  goddess  of  E-Anna,  his 
mistress,  built  Karaindash,  the  powerful  king, 
king  of  Babylon,  king  of  Sumer  and  Accad,  king 
of  Kasshu,  king  of  Kardunyash,  a  temple  in 
E-Anna.”  In  this  brief  inscription  the  king 
places  Babylon  first  in  his  list  of  titles,  and  the 
two  Kassite  titles,  Kasshu  and  Kardunyash,  at 
the  very  last.  This  can  only  be  due  to  a  follow¬ 
ing  of  the  immemorial  Babylonian  usage.  The 

1  See  reference,  vol.  i,  p.  518. 

2  See  the  arguments  for  so  locating  these  kings  in  the  chronological 
discussion  above,  vol.  i,  p.  519. 


THE  KASSITE  DYNASTY 


115 


old  land  soon  absorbed  the  peoples  who  came  to 
it  as  conquerors,  and  by  the  potency  of  its  own 
civilization  and  the  power  of  its  religion  com¬ 
pelled  adherence  to  ancient  law  and  custom. 
The  Kassites  had  conquered  Babylonia  by  force 
of  arms;  already  has  Babylonian  culture  con¬ 
quered  the  Kassites  and  assimilated  them  to 
itself. 

In  the  reign  of  Karaindash  we  meet  for  the 
first  time  evidence  of  contact  between  the 
kingdom  of  Assyria  and  the  empire  of  Baby¬ 
lonia.  Our  knowledge  of  these  relations  between 
the  two  kingdoms  comes  from  the  Assyrians, 
who  made  during  the  reign  of  Adad-nirari  III 
(811-783  B.  C.)  a  list  of  the  various  friendly  and 
hostile  relations  between  Babylonia  and  Assyria 
from  the  earliest  times  down  to  this  reign.  The 
original  of  this  precious  document  has  perished, 
but  a  copy  of  it  was  made  for  the  library  of 
Ashurbanipal  by  some  of  his  scholars,  to  whom 
our  knowledge  of  the  ancient  Orient  owes  so 
much.  This  copy  is  now  in  the  British  Museum, 
and,  though  badly  broken,  fully  half  of  it  may 
be  read.1  It  has  been  named  the  Synchronistic 
History,  and,  though  it  is  not  a  history  in  any 
strict  sense,  it  is  convenient  to  retain  this  ap¬ 
pellation.  The  very  first  words  upon  it  which 
may  be  read  with  certainty  relate  to  Karaindash, 

1  Published  II  R.  66,  and  III  R.  4,  3.  See  also  Delitzsch,  Kass&er, 
pp.  6,  ff.,  and  the  valuable  translation  by  Peiser  and  Winckler  ( Keilin - 
schrift.  Bibl.,  i,  pp.  194,  ff.)»  which  is  based  on  a  new  collation  by  Winck¬ 
ler.  See  also  above,  vol.  i,  p.  503, 


116  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


and  are  as  follows:  “Karaindash,  king  of  Kar- 
dunyash  and  Ashurbelnishishu,  king  of  Assyria, 
made  a  treaty  with  one  another,  and  swore  an 
oath  concerning  this  territory  with  one  another.” 
This  first  entry  evidently  refers  to  some  de¬ 
batable  land  between  the  two  countries,  con¬ 
cerning  which  there  had  been  previous  difficulty. 
The  two  kings  have  now  settled  the  boundary 
line  by  treaty.  This  shows  that  Assyria  was 
already  sufficiently  powerful  to  claim  a  legitimate 
title  to  a  portion  of  the  great  valley,  and  it  was 
acknowledged  by  Babylon  as  an  independent 
kingdom.  It  is  not  long  before  this  small  king¬ 
dom  of  Assyria  begins  to  dispute  with  Baby¬ 
lonia  for  the  control  even  of  the  soil  of  Babylonia 
itself.  With  this  first  notice  of  relations  between 
the  two  kingdoms  begins  the  long  series  of  strug¬ 
gles,  whether  peaceful  or  warlike,  which  never 
cease  till  the  bloodthirsty  Assyrian  has  driven 
the  Babylonian  from  the  seat  of  power  and 
possessed  his  inheritance. 

We  are  unhappily  not  in  a  position  to  be  very 
certain  as  to  the  order  of  succession  of  the  fol¬ 
lowers  of  Karaindash,  but  his  immediate  suc¬ 
cessor  was  probably  Kadashman-Ellil.1  No 
historical  inscription  of  this  king  and  no  business 
documents  dated  in  his  reign  have  yet  come 
to  light  in  Babylonia.  We  should  be  at  a  loss 
to  locate  him  at  all  were  it  not  for  the  assistance 

1  The  name  was  formerly  read  Kallima-Sin  (Winckler,  The  Tell-el- 
Aniarna  Letters,  i,  pp.  2,  ff.),  but  see  for  the  correction  Knudtzon,  Zeit- 
schrift  fur  Assyriologie ,  xii,  pp.  269,  270. 


THE  KASSITE  DYNASTY 


117 


to  be  obtained  from  the  archives  of  the  Egyp¬ 
tians.  As  in  the  case  of  the  land  of  Mitanni, 
so  also  here  are  we  in  possession  of  some  portions 
of  a  correspondence  with  Amenophis  III,  king 
of  Egypt.  The  British  Museum  possesses  a 
letter  written  in  Egypt  by  Amenophis  III  to 
Kadashman-Ellil,  and  the  Berlin  Museum  has 
three  letters  from  Kadashman-Ellil  to  Ameno¬ 
phis  III.  The  first  letter  is  probably  a  copy  of 
the  original  sent  to  Babylonia.  It  begins  in  this 
stately  fashion:  “To  Kadashman-Ellib  king  of 
Kardunyash,  my  brother;  thus  saith  Ameno¬ 
phis,  the  great  king,  the  king  of  Egypt,  thy 
brother:  with  me  it  is  well.  May  it  be  well 
with  thee,  with  thy  house,  with  thy  wives,  with 
thy  children,  with  thy  nobles,  with  thy  horses 
and  with  thy  chariots,  and  with  thy  land  may 
it  be  well;  with  me  may  it  be  well,  with  my 
house,  with  my  wives,  with  my  children,  with 
my  nobles,  with  my  horses,  with  my  chariots, 
with  my  troops,  and  with  my  land,  .may  it  be 
very  well/’1  The  letter  then  discusses  the  pro¬ 
posed  matrimonial  alliance  between  Egypt  and 
Babylonia  and  urges  that  Kadashman-Ellil 
should  give  to  him  his  daughter  to  wife.  The 
letters  preserved  in  Berlin  seem  to  relate  to  the 
same  correspondence  and  deal  chiefly  with  the 
proposed  marriage  of  the  daughter  of  Kadash- 

1  The  letter  is  British  Museum  No.  29,784.  Knudtzon,  El-Amarna 
Tafeln,  No.  1.  Knudtzon  reads  the  name  Kadashman-Kharbe,  but 
the  correct  reading  is  Kadashman.-E1H1.  Sec  King,  Inscriptions  of 
Kudurrus  or  Boundary  Stones  in  the  British  Museum,  p.  3. 


118  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


man-Ellil  to  Amenophis  III,  to  which  friendly 
consent  was  finally  given.  Both  the  daughter 
and  the  sister  of  Kadashman-Ellil  were  thus 
numbered  among  the  wives  of  Amenophis  III — 
full  proof  of  the  very  intimate  relation  which 
now  subsisted  between  the  two  great  culture 
lands  of  antiquity,  Babylonia  and  Egypt.  To 
find  letters  passing  between  Babylon  and  Egypt 
about  1400  B.  C.,  and  ambassadors  bearing  gifts, 
does,  indeed,  give  us  a  wonderful  view  into  the 
light  of  the  distant  past.  This  all  witnesses  to 
a  high  state  of  civilization;  to  ready  intercourse 
over  good  roads;  to  firmly  fixed  laws  and  stable 
national  customs.  It  gives  us,  however,  no  light 
upon  the  political  history  of  Babylonia,  which  is 
the  object  of  our  present  search,  and  we  must 
pass  from  it.  Kadashman-Ellil  had  a  long  reign 
and  was  succeeded  by  Kurigalzu  II. 

Of  the  next  king,  Kurigalzu  II,  about  1410 
B.  C.,  son  of  Burnaburiash  I,  our  knowledge  is 
also  very  unsatisfactory.  It  is  known  from  the 
letters  of  Burnaburiash  II,  his  son,  that  he  stood 
in  friendly  relations  with  Amenophis  III,  king 
of  Egypt,  and  it  is  probable  that  his  relations 
with  the  Assyrians  were  friendly.  The  few  in¬ 
scriptions1  of  his  which  remain  record  simply  the 
usual  building  operations.  The  titles  which  he 
uses  in  his  texts  are  “King  of  Sumer  and  Accad, 
king  of  the  Four  Quarters  of  the  World,”  to 

1  I  R.  4,  Lehmann  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie,  v,  417,  and  Hil- 
precht,  Old  Babylonian  Inscriptions ,  i,  part  i,  pi.  20,  etc, 


TEE  KASSITE  DYNASTY 


119 


which  in  one  instance  he  adds  the  title  “ shah - 
kanak  (that  is,  governor)  of  Ellil,”  and  in  an¬ 
other  case  uses  this  latter  title  only.  The  title 
of  king  of  Babylon,  which  we  might  have 
expected,  is  not  used  by  him  at  all.  This  may 
be  because  he  was  not  officially  made  king  by 
the  use  of  all  the  solemn  ceremonies  which  the 
priesthood  had  devised.  The  city  of  Dur-Kuri- 
galzu  (Kurigalzuburg)  derived  its  name  from 
him,  but  it  does  not  appear  whether  he  was  its 
founder  or  only  a  benefactor  and  rebuilder. 

During  his  reign  the  Canaanite  subjects  and 
tributaries  of  Egypt  attempted  to  revolt  against 
Amenophis  III,  and  sought  help  from  the  Baby¬ 
lonians,  whose  king  not  only  refused  to  give 
it,  but  threatened  to  invade  and  plunder  their 
territory  if  they  should  rise  against  his  Egyp¬ 
tian  ally.1 

His  reign  was  probably  short,  and  at  its  con¬ 
clusion,  about  the  year  1380,  he  was  succeeded 
by  his  son,  Burnaburiash  II,  whose  reign  was 
long  and  prosperous,  though  no  Babylonian 
memorials  of  it  have  been  preserved. 

Four  letters  written  by  this  king  to  Amen¬ 
ophis  IV  ( Napkhuriya ,  Akh-en-Aten) ,  king  of 
Egypt,  are  preserved  in  the  Berlin  Museum,2  and 
two  more  are  in  the  British  Museum.3  No  his- 

1  So  asserts  Burnaburish  II  in  his  letter  to  Amenophis  IV.  Knudtzon, 
El-Amarna  Tafeln,  No.  9. 

2  VA.  Th.  149,  150,  151,  152.  Der  Thontafelfund  von  El-Amarna , 
Heft  i. 

3  Bu.  88-10-13,  Nos.  21,  46,  and  81. 


120  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


torical  material  of  great  moment  is  offered  in 
these  letters.  They  reveal  a  period  of  relative 
peace  and  prosperity,  and  deal,  in  considerable 
measure,  with  the  little  courtesies  and  amenities 
of  life.  It  is,  for  example,  curious  to  find  the 
Babylonian  king  reproving  the  king  of  Egypt 
for  not  having  sent  an  ambassador  to  inquire 
for  him  when  he  was  ill.1  When  kings  had 
time  for  such  courtesies,  and  could  excuse  them¬ 
selves  for  failing  to  observe  them  only  on  the 
ground  of  their  ignorance  of  the  illness  and  the 
great  distance  to  be  covered  on  the  journey, 
there  must  have  been  freedom  from  war  and 
from  all  distress  at  home  and  abroad. 

The  successor  of  Burnaburiash  II  appears  to 
have  been  Karaindash  II  (about  1350  B.  C.), 
who  had  for  his  chief  wife  Muballitat-Sherua, 
daughter  of  Ashur-uballit,  king  of  Assyria,  so 
that  the  custom  of  intermarriage  which  prevailed 
between  the  royal  houses  of  Egypt  and  Babylon 
at  this  period  had  also  its  illustration  between 
the  houses  of  Assyria  and  Babylonia.  This 
alliance  made  for  peace  between  the  two  royal 
houses,  but  did  not  establish  peace  between  the 
peoples  of  the  two  countries.  When  Karaindash 
died,  his  son,  Kadashman-Kharbe  II,  came  to 
the  throne.  His  mother  was  Muballitat-Sherua, 
and  so  it  happened  that  an  Assyrian  king  had 
his  grandson  upon  the  throne  of  Babylon.  This 

lVA.  Th.  150,  10,  ff.,  translated  by  Ziminern,  Zcitschrift  fur  Assyriol- 
ogie,  v,  p.  139.  Knudtzon,  No.  7. 


THE  KASSTTE  DYNASTY 


121 


king  conducted  a  campaign  against  the  Sutu, 
whom  he  conquered  and  among  whom  he  set¬ 
tled  some  of  his  own  loyal  subjects.  Upon  his 
return  from  this  expedition  he  found  himself 
confronted  by  a  rebellion  of  the  Kassites,  who 
were  probably  jealous  of  the  growth  of  Assyrian 
influence,  and  he  was  killed.  The  rebels  then 
placed  upon  the  throne  Nazibugash  (also  called 
Shuzigash,  about  1360  B.  C.),  a  man  of  humble 
origin  and  not  a  descendant  of  the  royal  line. 
As  soon  as  the  news  of  this  rebellion  reached 
Assyria  Ashuruballit,  desiring  to  avenge  his 
grandson,  marched  against  Babylonia,  killed 
Nazibugash,  and  placed  upon  the  throne  Kuri- 
galzu  III,  a  son  of  Kadashman-Kharbe.1  Kuri- 
galzu  III  (about  1354-1331  B.  C.)  was  probably 
made  king  while  still  young,  and  his  reign  was 
long.  We  cannot  follow  its  events  in  detail,  but 
may  get  a  slight  view  of  some  of  its  glories. 
Many  centuries  before  his  day,  when  Kudur- 
nankhundi  of  Elam  ravaged  in  Babylonia,  he 
carried  away  a  small  agate  tablet,  which  was 
carefully  preserved  in  the  land  of  Elam.  This 
happened  about  2285  B.  C.,  and  now,  about 
1340  B.  C.,  Kurigalzu  III  invades  Elam  and 
conquers  even  the  city  of  Susa  itself.  The  little 
agate  tablet  is  recovered,  and  the  victorious 

1  These  facts  are  found  in  the  Babylonian  Chronicle  P,  first  published 
in  translation  by  Pinches,  Records  of  the  Past,  new  series,  v,  pp.  106| 
ff.,  and  retranslated  more  accurately  by  Winckler,  Allorientalische 
Forschungen,  pp.  115,  f.  With  this  chronicle  is  to  be  compared  the 
Synchronistic  History,  in  which  there  appear  to  be  some  errors.  Com¬ 
pare  Winckler,  ibid.,  and  also  Rost,  Untersuchungen,  p.  54,  etc. 


122  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


Kurigalzu  places  it  in  the  temple  of  E-kur  at 
Nippur,  with  his  own  brief  inscription  engraved 
on  its  back:  “Kurigalzu,  king  of  Karadunyash, 
conquered  the  palace  of  Susa  in  Elam  and  pre¬ 
sented  (this  tablet)  to  Nin-lil,  his  mistress,  for 
his  life.”1  It  is  to  this  campaign  that  the  Baby¬ 
lonian  Chronicle  probably  refers  in  its  allusion 
to  the  campaign  of  Kurigalzu  against  Khur- 
batila,  king  of  Elam,  which  resulted  so  vic¬ 
toriously.  After  the  invasion  of  Elam  the 
victorious  Kurigalzu  III  also  fought  with  Ellil- 
nirari,  king  of  Assyria,  and  worsted  him,  as  the 
Babylonian  Chronicle  narrates  the  story,  though 
the  Assyrian  Synchronistic-  History  claims  the 
victory  in  the  same  conflict  for  the  Assyrians.2 

Nazi-Maruttash  (1331-1305  B.  C.),  son  of 
Kurigalzu  III,  the  next  king,  also  fought  with 
the  Assyrians,  led  by  their  king,  Adad-nirari  I, 
who  defeated  him  signally,  and  gained  some 
Babylonian  territory  by  pushing  the  boundary 
farther  south.  This  is  the  Assyrian  account; 
what  the  Babylonian  story  may  have  been  we 
do  not  know,  for  the  Babylonian  Chronicle  is 
broken  at  this  point.  Of  the  son  of  Nazi- 
Maruttash  who  succeeded  him  under  the  name 
of  Kadashman-Turgu  (1305-1288  B.  C.)  we 
know  nothing,  and  of  his  successor,  Kadashman- 

1  Hilprecht,  Old  Babylonian  Inscriptions,  vol.  i,  part  i,  p.  31. 

*  Compare  Chron.  P,  iii,  20-22,  with  Synchronistic  History,  i,  18,  ff., 
and  see  Winckler,  Altorientalische  Forschungen,  i,  pp.  122,  123,  and 
Rost,  Untersuchungen,  p.  54,  note  1.  Chronicle  P  has  here  read  Adad- 
nirari  incorrectly  for  Ellil-nirari. 


THE  KASSTTE  DYNASTY 


123 


Ellil  (1288-1282  B.  C.),  we  know  only  that  he 
was  at  war  with  Shalmaneser  I,  king  of  Assyria/ 
without  being  able  to  learn  the  outcome.  These 
constantly  recurring  wars  with  Assyria  are 
ominous,  and  indicate  the  rapid  increase  of 
Assyrian  power.  They  point  toward  the  day  of 
destruction  for  Babylon,  and  of  glory  for  the 
military  people  who  were  beginning  to  press 
upon  the  great  city. 

The  following  reigns  are  almost  entirely  un¬ 
known  to  us.  The  names  of  the  kings  awaken  no 
response  in  our  minds,  and  we  can  set  them  down 
only  as  empty  words;  they  are  Kudur-Ellil 
(about  1282-1273  B.  C.)  and  Shagarakti-Shuri- 
ash  (about  1273-1260  B.  C.),  though  in  their 
cases  the  Babylonian  King  List  has  supplied  us 
with  the  length  of  their  reigns,  and  we  know 
definitely  and  certainly  their  order  in  the 
dynasty. 

The  Babylonian  Chronicle  now  again  comes  to 
our  aid,  and  with  rather  startling  intelligence. 
Tukulti-Ninib,  king  of  Assyria,  has  invaded 
Babylon.  We  do  not  know  what  steps  led  to 
this  attack.  Perhaps  the  old  boundary  disputes 
had  once  more  caused  difficulty;  perhaps  it  was 
only  the  growing  Assyrian  lust  for  power  and 
territory.  But  whatever  the  cause,  this  was  no 
ordinary  invasion  intended  chiefly  as  a  threat. 
The  Assyrian  king  enters  Babylon,  kills  some  of 

1  III  R.  4,  No.  1.  Compare  Delitzsch,  Koss&er,  p.  10,  and  Hilprecht, 
Old  Babylonian  Inscriptions,  vol.  i,  part  i,  p.  31. 


124  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


its  inhabitants,  destroys  the  city  wall,  at  least 
partially,  and,  last  and  worst  of  all,  removes  the 
treasures  of  the  temple,  and  carries  away  the 
great  god  Marduk  to  Assyria.1  Here  was  a 
sore  defeat  indeed,  and  the  end,  for  the  time 
at  least,  of  Babylonian  independence.  The 
line  of  kings  is  continued  during  the  period 
of  war  and  invasion  with  the  names  of  Kash- 
tiliash  II  (1260-1252  B.  C.),  during  whose 
reign  the  invasion  occurred ;  Ellil-nadinshum 
(1252  B.  C.),  and  Kadashman-Kharbe  II, 
who  together  reigned  but  three  years,  and 
Adad-shum-iddin.  But  the  last  three  of  these 
kings  must  have  been  only  vassals  of  Tukulti- 
Ninib,  who  was  the  real  king  of  Babylon  for 
seven  years,  even  though  he  was  represented 
by  these  as  his  deputies.2  Here  is  the  city 
of  Hammurapi,  glorious  in  its  history,  ancient 
in  its  days,  ruled  by  a  king  of  the  small  state 
of  Assyria.  But  the  old  spirit  was  not  quite 
dead,  and  after  seven  years  of  this  domination 
the  Babylonians  rose  in  rebellion,  drove  the 
Assyrians  from  Babylon,  and  made  Adad- 
shum-usur  (about  1243-1213  B.  C.)  king,  while 
Tukulti-Ninib  returned  to  Assyria  only  to  find 
a  rebellion  against  him  headed  by  his  own 
son.3  In  this  his  life  was  lost,  and  he  went 
down  with  the  decline  of  his  once  brilliant 

1  Chronicle  P,  col.  iv,  3-6. 

*  See  Hommel’s  acute  suggestions  for  removing  the  chronological 
difficulties  in  Winckler,  Altorientalische  Forsiichungen,  i,  pp.  138,  139. 

3  Chronicle  P,  iv,  7-11. 


THE  KASSITE  DYNASTY  125 

fortunes.  On  the  other  hand,  the  reign  of 
Adad-shum-usur  was  at  once  the  token  and 
result  of  better  fortunes  in  Babylonia.  In 
his  reign  the  power  of  Babylon  again  began 
to  increase.  He  attacked  Assyria  itself,  and 
the  Assyrians  were  scarce  able  to  keep  the 
victorious  Babylonians  out  of  their  country. 
Their  king,  Ellil-kudur-usur,  was  slain  in  battle, 
and  in  the  overturning,  Babylonia  made  gains 
of  Assyrian  territory.  The  reign  of  Meli- 
Shipak  II  (about  1213-1198  B.  C.)  was  also 
a  period  of  Babylonian  aggression  against  the 
Assyrian  king  Ninib-apal-esharra,1  and  to 
such  good  purpose  that  the  next  Babylonian 
king,  Marduk-apal-iddin  (about  1198-1185 
B.  C.),  saw  the  Assyrians  once  more  confined 
to  their  narrow  territory,  stripped  of  all  their 
conquests,  and  was  able  to  add  to  his  own 
name  the  proud  titles  “king  of  Kishshati, 
king  of  Sumer  and  Accad,”2  in  token  of  the 
extension  once  more  of  Babylonian  dominion 
over  nearly  the  whole  of  the  valley. 

But  this  change  was  too  great  and  too  sud¬ 
den  to  last,  and  the  power  of  Assyria  must 
soon  return  and  then  again  continue  to  de¬ 
velop.  When  Ashur-dan  became  king  of  As¬ 
syria,  and  this  was  probably  while  Marduk- 
apal-iddin  was  still  reigning,  there  was  another 
reversal  of  fortunes,  though  this  time  the 


1  Synchronistic  History,  ii,  3-8. 

2  VI  R.  41,  i,  20. 


126  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


change  was  neither  so  sudden  nor  so  great, 
Ashur-dan  fought  with  the  next  Babylonian 
king,  Zamamashumiddin  (about  1185  B.  C.), 
and  succeeded  in  winning  back  some  of  the 
cities  in  the  ever-debatable  land  between 
Assyria  and  Babylonia,1  and  thus  gave  proof 
that  the  Assyrian  power  was  again  waxing 
strong.  The  next  Kassite  king,  Ellil-nadin-akhi 
(about  1184-1181  B.  C.),  reigned  also  but  a 
short  time,  and  the  very  brevity  of  these 
reigns  may,  perhaps,  as  often,  indicate  that 
the  period  was  filled  with  strife.  Assyria  was 
certainly  threatening  the  Babylonian  empire, 
for  the  long  reign  of  Asshur-dan  gave  time 
for  the  carrying  out  of  extensive  plans,  and 
the  power  to  realize  them  was  plainly  not 
wanting.  The  failure  of  the  Kassites  to  hold 
inviolate  the  territory  of  Babylonia  resulted 
in  a  Semitic  revolution  in  which  the  dynasty 
that  had  ruled  so  long  in  the  queenly  city 
ended.  Its  advent  was  heralded  by  war  and 
by  internal  dissensions  in  the  last  preceding 
dynasty;  and  its  approaching  end  was  indi¬ 
cated  in  like  manner. 


1  Synchronistic  History,  iii,  9  -12. 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  DYNASTY  OF  ISIN 

The  cause  of  the  downfall  of  the  great  Kassite 
dynasty  is  unkown  to  us.  It  may  have  been  due 
to  an  uprising  of  the  Semites  against  foreign 
domination,  with  the  war  cry  of  “Babylonia  for 
the  Babylonians;”  a  cry  which  in  various  lan¬ 
guages  has  often  resounded  among  men  and  won 
many  a  national  triumph. 

The  Babylonian  King  List  names  the  new 
dynasty,  the  dynasty  of  Isin,1  but  its  origin  is 
still  doubtful.  It  has  been  suggested  that  it 
began  in  Babylon  and  is  named  after  a  section 
of  the  city  known  as  Isin,2  but  it  is  still  possible 
that  it  originated  in  the  city  of  Isin,  whose 
influence  had  been  marked  at  an  earlier  period 
of  the  history.  This  dynasty  reigned  in  Babylon 
a  period  of  one  hundred  and  thirty-two  years. 
The  list  is  so  badly  broken  that  but  few  of  the 
names  have  been  retained,  and  we  are  once  more 
forced  to  seek  the  means  of  restoring  the  names 
from  notices  in  other  documents.  There  were 
eleven  kings  in  this  dynasty  who  were  regarded 

1  Jensen  reads  Isin  ( Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie,  xi,  p.  90),  and  Craig 
( American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages  and  Literatures ,  xiii,  pp.  220, 
221)  supports  him.  Compare  also  Rost  (U ntersuchungen,  p.  10,  note  2). 

2  So,  for  example,  Rost,  l.  c. 


127 


128  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


by  the  Babylonian  historians  as  legitimate,  and 
of  these  four  are  entirely  unknown  to  us. 

The  names  of  the  first  two  kings  of  the 
dynasty,  who  reigned  eighteen  and  six  years 
respectively  (about  1180-1162  B.  C.  and  1 162— 
1156  B.  C.),  are  lost  and  cannot  yet  be  restored 
with  certainty;  though  it  is  known  that  the  name 
of  the  first  began  with  Marduk.  It  is  probable 
that  his  name  was  Marduk-shapik-zerim.1  The 
third  king  of  the  dynasty  was  Nebuchadrezzar 
I2  who  began  to  reign  about  1156  B.  C.,  and  was 
on  the  throne  for  more  than  sixteen  years,  though 
the  full  length  of  his  reign  has  not  been  ascer¬ 
tained.  This  king  exhibits  once  more  the  spirit 
almost  of  a  Hammurapi.  His  victories  are  bril¬ 
liant,  and  his  defeats  only  evidence  the  hopeless¬ 
ness  of  the  cause  of  Babylonia  and  the  vigor  of  his 
efforts  to  save  the  state.  When  he  began  to  reign 
Mutakkil-Nusku  was  probably  king  of  Assyria, 
and  in  him  lived  the  traditions  of  the  glorious 
reign  of  Ashur-dan,  who  had  once  more  carried 
the  Assyrian  arms  to  victory.  Assyria  was  pre- 

1  I  owe  this  suggestion  to  a  private  communication  from  Professor  A. 
T.  Clay,  who  has  found  the  name  on  a  Kudurru  in  the  Yale  University 
collection.  The  document  is  dated  in  the  eighth  year  of  Marduk-nadin- 
akhi  and  the  allusion  therefore  cannot  be  to  Marduk-shapik-zer-mati, 
whom  we  know  to  have  been  later. 

2  Hilprecht  has  tried,  with  great  learning  and  acuteness,  to  prove 
that  Nebuchadrezzar  I  was  the  first  king  of  this  dynasty  ( Old  Baby¬ 
lonian  Inscriptions,  i,  part  i,  pp.  38-44),  but  without  success.  Delitzsch 
has  shown  that  the  name  Nebuchadrezzar  could  not  have  stood  in  the 
first  place  on  the  King  List  ( Assyriologische  Miscellen.,  p  186),  and 
Winckler  has  proved  that  this  view  cannot  be  reconciled  with  Assyrian 
chronology  ( Untersuchungen ,  pp.  28,  29,  and  Altorientalische  Forschungen, 
i,  p.  131). 


THE  DYNASTY  OF  1SIN 


129 


paring  to  contest  with  Babylonia  the  possession 
of  the  whole  of  the  valley,  and  the  older  land 
had  need  of  a  man  of  force  and  character.  In 
the  reign  of  the  next  Assyrian  king,  by  name 
Ashur-rish-ishi,  came  the  first  great  contest,  the 
beginning  of  the  struggle  for  supremacy  between 
the  two  great  nations.  Nebuchadrezzar  took 
the  initiative  and  entered  Assyria,  but  was  met 
by  Ashur-rish-ishi,  defeated  and  forced  to  retreat 
in  a  veritable  rout,  having  burned  even  his  bag¬ 
gage  to  lighten  his  return  to  Babylonia.  Having 
collected  reinforcements,  he  returned  to  the  con¬ 
test,  but  was  met  by  superior  forces,  again 
defeated  and  forced  to  retreat,  having  lost  forty 
of  his  chariots.  This  terrible  reverse  found  a 
counterbalancing  success  elsewhere,  for  Nebu¬ 
chadrezzar  conquered  the  Lulubi,  and  adminis¬ 
tered  a  severe  punishment  to  Elam.1  The  Elam¬ 
ites  had  dared  to  seize  the  neighboring  district 
of  Namar,  and  had  even  possessed  themselves  of 
Dur-ilu.  With  the  assistance  of  Ritti-Marduk, 
a  native  chief  with  a  Babylonian  name,  Nebu¬ 
chadrezzar  attacked  and  drove  them  beyond  the 
Tigris.  After  a  successful  pursuit  he  plundered 
Elam  and  returned  with  heavy  spoil.  Ritti- 
Marduk  was  handsomely  rewarded  and  Elam’s 
humiliation  kept  her  quiet  for  a  long  time. 

But  Nebuchadrezzar  had  to  face  an  humilia¬ 
tion  of  his  own.  His  own  territories  were  invaded 


1 V  R.  55-57,  and  Hilprecht,  Freibrief  Nebuchadrezzar's.  See  also 
S.  A.  Smith,  Assyrian  Letters,  iv,  and  Meissner  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriol- 
ogie,  iv,  pp.  259,  ff.  (by  latter  mistakenly  ascribed  to  Nebuchadrezzar  II). 


130  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


by  Hittites,  who  even  took  Babylon.  His  action 
was  as  decisive  as  it  was  sudden.  In  thirteen 
days  he  drove  them  out,  pursued  with  vigor 
and,  most  important  of  all,  swung  fearlessly  and 
successfully  his  flying  columns  into  the  far  west, 
even  into  Syria,1  that  goal  of  such  mighty 
endeavor  in  the  distant  past.  In  one  of  his 
inscriptions  Nebuchadrezzar  calls  himself  “sun 
of  his  land,  who  makes  his  people  prosperous, 
the  protector  of  boundaries.”  Well  might  he 
make  the  boast,  for,  though  unsuccessful  against 
the  Assyrians,  he  had  maintained  a  kingdom 
which  without  him  had  probably  fallen  before 
the  new  and  already  almost  invincible  Assyrian 
power. 

Nebuchadrezzar  I  was  succeeded  by  Ellil- 
nadinapli  (about  1120  B.  C.),  whose  reign  fur¬ 
nishes  no  event  of  importance  known  to  us.  In 
the  reign  of  his  successor,  Marduk-nadin-akhe 
(about  1116-1096  B.  C.),  the  Assyrians  dis¬ 
played  in  a  still  clearer  light  the  power  which 
was  finally  to  put  the  destinies  of  all  western 
Asia  in  their  hands.  The  throne  of  Assyria  was 
now  occupied  by  Tiglathpileser  I,  one  of  the 
greatest  warriors  of  antiquity.  Against  his  king¬ 
dom  Marduk-nadin-akhe  at  first  had  some 
success,  for  he  carried  away  from  Ekallati  the 
images  of  the  gods  Adad  and  Sala.  These 
remained  away  for  centuries,  and  were  only 

1  Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archceology,  1882,  p.  10,  and 
compare  Hilprecht,  Old  Babylonian  Inscriptions,  i,  part  i,  p.  41, 


THE  DYNASTY  OF  ISIN 


131 


restored  to  their  place  by  Sennacherib.  But 
such  successes  only  nerved  Tiglathpileser  to 
greater  efforts.  He  invaded  Babylonia  and 
captured  a  number  of  cities  in  its  northern  half 
and  even  took  Babylon  itself.  Herein  is  the 
first  great  blow  against  Babylonian  independ¬ 
ence.  The  Assyrians  did  not  hold  the  captured 
city,  but  Tiglathpileser  I  was  the  grand  monarch 
of  western  Asia,  and  the  Babylonian  king  ruled 
only  by  sufferance. 

The  next  Babylonian  king  was  probably  Itti- 
Marduk-balatu,  who  ruled  only  one  year  and 
six  months  and  then  gave  place  to  Marduk- 
shapik-zer-mati  (about  1094-1083  B.  C.),  with 
whom  there  began  again  a  brief  period  of  stable 
peace.  He  “  increased  the  temple  of  Ezida  in 
its  old  age,  and  hath  built  it  up  anew,  and  hath 
set  it  up  in  its  place.”1  The  Assyrians  under 
king  Ashur-bel-kala  had  given  over  for  the 
present  the  policy  of  crushing  Babylonia,  and 
had  adopted  rather  the  plan  of  making  an  ally 
and  friend  of  the  ancient  commonwealth.  After 
the  death  of  Marduk-shapik-zer-mati,  a  man  of 
unknown  origin,  Adad-apal-iddin,  came  to  the 
throne,  by  means  of  a  rebellion  in  Kardunyash. 
Usurper  though  he  was,  Ashur-bel-kala  con¬ 
tinued  the  same  friendship  to  him,  and  even 
married  his  daughter.2  The  last  king  of  this 
dynasty  was  Nabu-shum-libur,  about  1056- 


1  See  King,  Hammurabi ,  iii,  p.  255, 

2  See  above,  vol.  i,  p.  526, 


132  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


1047  B.  C.,  of  whose  reign  no  tidings  have  yet 
come  down  to  us. 

During  the  latter  part  of  this  dynasty  the 
Assyrians  were  chiefly  occupied  in  the  internal 
strengthening  and  solidifying  of  their  kingdom, 
while  the  Babylonians  were  unable  to  undertake 
any  extensive  campaigns.  After  this  period  our 
direct  Babylonian  information  becomes  more  and 
more  fragmentary,  and  even  in  some  cases  of 
doubtful  meaning.  The  Babylonian  state  had 
lost  the  key  to  western  Asia  and  the  Assyrians 
had  found  it.  Neither  state  was  for  the  moment 
making  any  great  efforts,  but  the  future  belonged 
to  Assyria  for  centuries  at  least,  and  the  sun  of 
Babylonia  had  suffered  a  long  eclipse.  From 
now  onward  we  must  turn  away  from  Babylon 
to  see  the  main  stream  of  history  flowing  through 
its  rival's  dominions. 

We  have  followed  the  fortunes  of  the  Baby¬ 
lonian  cities  from  the  gray  dawn  of  antiquity 
down  the  centuries,  through  good  report  and 
evil  report.  We  have  watched  the  cities  grow 
into  kingdoms  and  have  seen  the  kingdoms 
welded  into  a  mighty  empire.  We  have  followed 
its  advance  to  the  very  zenith  and  have  seen  its 
decline  into  subjection.  It  is  a  noble  history, 
and  even  in  outline  has  enough  of  the  rich  color 
of  the  Orient  to  make  a  glowing  picture  for  the 
mind.  From  its  contemplation  we  must  now 
turn  to  look  upon  the  development  and  progress 
of  the  kingdom  of  Assyria. 


BOOK  III 

THE  HISTORY  OF  ASSYRIA 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  ASSYRIA 

Nothing  is  known  of  the  period  when  the  first 
Semitic  settlers  entered  Assyria.  The  country 
must  have  already  had  inhabitants,  who  may 
perhaps  have  belonged  to  some  one  of  the 
ancient  stocks  who  dwelt  in  historic  times  in 
the  Kurdish  or  Elamite  mountains.  The  oldest 
traditions  of  the  Semites,  echoed  down  the  ages 
by  the  Hebrews,1  connect  the  earliest  Semitic 
invaders  of  Assyria  with  the  old  culture  land  of 
Babylonia,  and  with  these  agree  also  the  few 
scattered  facts  which  have  come  down  to  us 
from  the  dim  past.  The  earliest  Assyrian  rulers 
known  to  us  bear  the  title  patesi.  The  word  is 
Sumerian  and  must  have  come  from  the  Su¬ 
merian  people  in  Babylonia.  There  is  no  exact 
equivalent  for  it  in  the  English  tongue,  but  the 

1  Witness  the  stories  of  the  tower  of  Babel,  in  Babylonia,  and  the 
direct  statement  of  the  ancient  legend  in  the  words:  “And  Cush  begat 
Nimrod:  he  began  to  be  a  mighty  one  in  the  earth.  .  .  .  And  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  his  kingdom  was  Babel,  and  Erech,  and  Accad,  and  Calneh, 
in  the  land  of  Shinar.  Out  of  that  land  he  went  forth  into  Assyria, 
and  builded  Nineveh,  and  Rehoboth-Ir,  and  Cal  ah,  and  Resen  between 
Nineveh  and  Calah  (the  same  is  the  great  city).  Genesis  x,  8-12. 

133 


134  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


meaning  of  it  comes  out  with  reasonable  clear¬ 
ness.  It  is  a  religious  title  of  authority.  It 
expresses  the  idea  of  earthly  rule  under  the 
heavenly  power  of  a  god.  The  man  who  bore 
it  was  ruler  of  men  or  of  lands  as  vicegerent  of 
the  deity.  He  was  patesi  of  the  land  of  Assyria, 
because  he  was  patesi  of  its  great  god  Ashur. 
The  word  was  Sumerian  indeed,  and  so  forms 
a  slender  link  binding  early  Assyrian  civilization 
with  Babylonia. 

The  Assyrians  rendered  the  word  patesi ,  or 
perhaps  read  it,  ishakku,  which  seems  to  mean 
in  itself  about  the  same  thing  as  patesi  with 
probably  a  little  less  religious  color.  When  the 
early  Assyrian  rulers  desired  to  emphasize  the 
religious  side  of  their  office  as  ruler  they  were 
wont  to  call  themselves  shangu,  which  means 
priest.  We  do  not  know  when  these  Assyrian 
rulers  began  to  use  the  title  sharru ,  which  is  the 
usual  and  ordinary  word  for  king,  but  quite 
frequently,  after  it  came  into  use,  a  ruler  called 
himself  patesi  at  one  time  and  king  at  another. 
He  was  still  the  representative  of  his  god  on 
earth,  and  so  was  patesi ;  he  was  also  the  war 
lord  over  men,  and  so  might  bring  out  of  the 
Semitic  Babylonian  usage  the  word  sharru ,  and 
so  entitle  himself  as  he  set  out  upon  conquest. 

The  earliest  Semitic  settlement  known  to  us 
was  at  Asshur.  The  spot  was  well  chosen.  It 
lay  on  the  west  bank  of  the  Tigris  nearly  half 
way  between  the  upper  and  the  lower  Zab  rivers 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  ASSYRIA 


135 


which  pour  their  muddy  waters  into  the  Tigris 
from  the  east.  The  ground  on  which  the  city 
was  to  stand  was  high  and  rocky,  and  along  its 
eastern  side  ran  the  deep  swift  Tigris.  On  the 
north  the  rocky  heights  fell  off  abruptly  to  the 
plain,  with  here  and  there  rifts  through  which 
one  might  clamber  down  from  the  city.  It 
would  be  easy  to  defend  the  northern  side  against 
any  hostile  approach,  and  the  more  especially 
because  an  arm  of  the  Tigris  swept  by  this  rocky 
base,  which  though  early  sanded  and  silted, 
might  easily  be  turned  into  a  protecting  moat 
of  water.  Far  away  to  the  north  stretched 
fertile  soil,  and  yet  better  was  the  land  east  of 
the  river,  which  rose  in  gentle  undulations 
toward  the  distant  foothills.  Far  away  to  the 
north  were  snow-capped  mountains,  a  natural 
boundary  for  a  new  commonwealth.  West  of 
the  city  the  defense  was  almost  equally  easy, 
for  only  two  small  valleys  led  downward  from 
the  city’s  height,  while  westward  as  well  as 
northward  was  goodly  land  inviting  the  hus¬ 
bandman  to  till  it  and  supply  the  new  city  with 
food.1 

blither,  more  than  two  thousand  years  before 
Christ,  came  men  who  founded  a  city  and  built 
in  it  a  temple  to  the  god  Ashur,  bearing  the  high- 
sounding  name  Ekharsagkurkura,  “house  of  the 
mountain  of  the  lands.”  We  know  not  what 

1  The  description  of  the  site  here  given  owes  most  to  Walter  Andrae, 
Die  Festungswerke  von  Assur,  1013,  p.  1,  but  there  are  items  in  it  drawn 
from  Gertrude  Lowthian  Bell,  Amutalh  to  Amurath ,  p.  221. 


136  HISTOEY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYE1A 


else  they  built,  nor  how  they  lived.  The  earliest 
ruler  among  them  whose  name  has  come  down 
to  us  was  Ushpia,1  whose  name  is  not  Semitic, 
but  may  be  derived  from  the  people  of  some 
other  race  from  mountain  lands  above,  whom 
we  have  already  supposed  to  be  earlier  occupants 
of  the  country.  No  inscription  of  his  has  reached 
our  eyes,  if  indeed,  any  were  written,  and  he 
remains  a  shadowy  figure  against  the  distant 
horizon. 

Soon  after  IJshpia  came  Kikia,  who  began  the 
building  of  the  city  wall.2  How  far  his  work 
extended  we  can  no  longer  discover.  It  had 
slipped  away  and  fallen  before  the  fourteenth 
century,  as  Shalmaneser  I  testifies.  But  beneath 
the  fore  court  of  the  temple  of  Ekharsagkurkura 
are  yet  to  be  seen  a  few  archaic  remains  which 
may  go  back  to  this  earliest  period.  The  patesis 
who  followed  Kikia  also  were  wall  builders,  and 
to  them  may  go  back  the  earliest  parts  of  the 
north  wall  of  the  city  which  once  ran  on  the 
rocky  edge,  and  high  though  it  was  above  the 
plain,  bore  towers,  and  at  one  dangerous  spot 
was  built  double,  and  supplied  with  casemates.3 
In  some  of  these  early  days  were  built  also  the 
first  defenses  on  the  northwest,  where  was  a 
sort  of  inner  wall,  defended  on  the  outside  by 
massive  bastions,  and  on  the  south  were  some- 

1  For  the  reference  which  Shalmaneser  I  makes  to  Ushpia,  see 
vol  i,  p.  538. 

2  See  the  reference  by  Ashir-rim-nisheshu  to  him,  vol.  i,  p.  538. 

3  Walter  Andrae,  Die  Festungswerke  von  Assur,  p.  3. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  ASSYRIA 


137 


what  similar  defenses.  Rude  and  dangerous 
enemies  must  have  threatened  this  old  city,  or  its 
builders  would  scarce  have  defended  it  so  might¬ 
ily,  but  who  these  foes  may  have  been  we  know 
not;  they  are  yet  more  ghostly  than  these  patesis , 
who  built  the  walls,  whose  foundations  mav 
even  yet  be  seen. 

After  Kikia  came  others  bearing  strange  and 
ill-sounding  names,  some  of  them  perhaps  of  the 
early  stock,  others  Sumerian,  and  among  them 
very  early  a  patesi,  with  the  Semitic  name 
Shalim-akhum,  harbinger  of  the  day  when  all 
the  kings  should  have  naught  but  Semitic  names. 
His  son  was  Ilu-shuma,  and  of  him  there  is  the 
very  definite  historical  recollection  that  he  was 
at  war  with  the  first  king,  Sumu-abu,  of  the 
first  dynasty  of  Babylon.  We  do  not  know  the 
issue  of  the  conflict,  but  perhaps  we  shall  be  not 
far  astray  if  we  presume  an  Assyrian  defeat,  for 
the  mention  of  the  war  is  in  a  chronicle1  written 
to  record  Babylonian  achievements  and  little 
likely  to  record  conflicts  that  ended  in  defeat, 
and  to  this  conclusion  also  comes  the  support  of 
the  fact  that  only  a  little  later  one  of  Sumu- 
rabi’s  successors,  Hammurapi,  actually  exercised 
authority  over  Assyria.  But  of  the  time  of 
which  we  now  speak  it  is  significant  of  the  rapid 
and  substantial  growth  of  Assyrian  power  that 
Ilu-shuma  should  dare  at  all  to  measure  strength 
with  the  venerable  kingdom  of  the  south. 


1  See  the  reference  above,  vol.  i,  pp.  438,  538. 


138  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


After  Ilushuma  came  his  son  Irishum,  or 
Erishum,  to  rule,  the  times  being  stable  enough 
to  ensure  the  succession  in  the  same  blood. 
Irishum  dug  a  canal  into  the  city,  perhaps  to 
supply  it  with  water,  and  left  behind  him  two 
inscriptions1  written  in  good  Semitic  words  and 
in  archaic  cuneiform  characters.  The  remains 
of  this  canal  filled  with  the  debris  of  the  ages 
are  still  discernible,  but  the  bricks  with  which 
he  built  a  temple  to  Adad  have  probably  suc¬ 
cumbed  to  time.  Later  kings2  thought  he  lived 
and  did  his  work  about  2039  B.  C.,  but  the  date 
is  hard  to  reconcile  with  others,  and  his  time 
may  even  have  been  earlier.  However  that  may 
be,  his  figure  has  some  substance,  for  we  know 
that  he  wrought  two  great  works,  and  left 
behind  contributions  both  to  civilization  and 
to  religion,  and  we  are  even  able  to  read  of 
his  deeds  upon  documents  of  his  own  day. 
In  him  has  begun  the  written  history  of  As¬ 
syria. 

Ikunum,  son  of  Irishum,  came  to  the  throne 
and  added  his  labors  to  the  wall  of  defense 
about  the  city,3  and  built  a  temple  of  the  god¬ 
dess  Ninkigal,  of  which  no  remains  have  been 
found  at  Asshur,  and  it  has,  therefore,  been 
conjectured  that  it  may  have  been  erected  at 

1  Messerschmidt,  Keilschrifttexte  aus  Assur,  i,  Nos.  1,  60,  and  61, 
translated  by  Luckenbill,  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages . 
xxviii,  p.  167. 

2  See  vol.  i,  p.  539. 

8  See  vol.  i,  p.  506. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  ASSYRIA  139 

Nineveh.1  His  son  and  successor  bore  the  great 
name  of  Sharruken  or  Sargon,  a  name  already 
made  famous  in  Babylonia,  and  later  to  resound 
over  the  wide  Orient  when  borne  by  Sargon  II. 

We  do  not  know  who  was  his  successor,  but 
it  may  have  been  Shamshi-Adad  I,  who  was  a 
contemporary  of  Hammurapi,  greatest  of  the 
kings  of  early  Babylonia.2  With  Shamshi-Adad 
I,  there  begins  the  more  narrative  form  of 
inscription,  still  written,  indeed,  in  archaic  cunei¬ 
form  characters,  but  with  a  certain  freedom  of 
space  and  order  about  it.  He  has  indeed,  great 
things  to  tell.  He  may  recount  how  the  temple 
of  the  god  En-lil,  erected  by  Irishum,  had 
“fallen  to  ruins,”  and  was  now  re-erected  by 
himself.  He  now  rebuilt  it  and  roofed  it  with 
cedars,  and  its  mud  brick  walls  did  he  adorn 
with  silver,  gold,  and  lapis-lazuli.  In  his  day 
we  are  come  upon  times  of  riches  and  of  culture, 
indeed.  But  he  went  deeper  into  everyday  life 
and  records,  if,  indeed,  he  did  not  establish  by 
law  the  standard  prices  in  his  city.  “For  one 
shekel  of  silver,  two  gur  of  grain;  for  one  shekel 
of  silver  twenty-five  mana  of  wool,  for  one 
shekel  of  silver,  twelve  ka  of  oil.”  In  this  same 
inscription  he  boasts  of  having  received  the 
tribute  of  other  kings;  so  begins  with  him  the 
great  art  of  tribute-collecting  which  later  kings 
were  to  carry  to  so  high  a  point,  and  with  him 


1  Johns,  Ancient  Assyria,  1912,  p.  41. 

2  See  vol.  i,  p.  539. 


140  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


also  begins  the  Assyrian  form  of  royal  boasting. 
More  wonderful  still,  he  claims  to  have  set  up 
a  memorial  stela  on  the  shore  of  the  great  sea, 
and  one  pauses  to  ask,  in  surprise,  does  he 
really  mean  the  Mediterranean?  Yet  in  spite 
of  his  boasts  he  seems  to  have  been  under  some 
sort  of  bondage  to  Hammurapi,1  who  claims  to 
have  had  troops  stationed  in  his  country. 

After  the  time  of  Shamshi-Adad  I  the  shadows 
fall  again,  and  we  have  only  names  of  builders  of 
wails  such  as  Ashir-nirari  I,  son  of  Ishme  Dagan 
I,  whose  walls  fell  down  after  a  time  and  were 
rebuilt  by  Ashir-rim-nisheshu,  who  knows  how 
to  tell2  of  his  deeds,  and  name  some  of  his 
predecessors. 

These  names  are  all  that  remain  of  the  history 
of  the  early  government  of  Assyria.  At  this 
period,  the  chief  city  was  Asshur,  then,  and  long 
after,  the  residence  of  the  ruler.  There  is  no 
hint  in  these  early  texts  of  hegemony  over  other 
cities;  though  Nineveh  certainly,  and  other 
cities  probably,  were  then  in  existence.  The 
population  was  probably  small,  consisting,  in  its 
ruling  classes  at  least,  of  colonists  from  Baby¬ 
lonia.  There  were,  as  we  have  seen,  earlier 
settlers  among  whom  the  Semitic  invaders 

1  For  the  inscription,  see  Messerschmidt,  op.  cit.,  No.  2,  and  com¬ 
pare  Luckenbill,  op.  cit.,  pp.  166,  ff.  For  Hammurapi’s  contempo¬ 
raneousness,  see  above,  vol.  i,  p.  539,  and  for  his  claim  of  authority  in 
Assyria  see  his  letter,  or  military  dispatch,  in  King,  Letters  and  Inscrip¬ 
tions  of  Hammurabi,  iii,  pp.  3,  ff. 

2  See  his  Zigat  in  Andrae,  Die  Festungswerke  von  Assiir.  Plate 
LXXXVI,  and  Textband,  p.  155. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  ASSYRIA 


141 


found  home,  as  there  were  in  Babylonia  when 
the  Semites  first  appeared  in  that  land,  but  of 
them  we  have  no  certainty.  It  is  an  indistinct 
picture  which  we  get  of  these  times  in  the  tem¬ 
perate  northern  land,  but  it  is  a  picture  of 
civilized  men  who  dwelt  in  cities,  and  built 
temples  in  which  to  worship  their  gods,  and 
who  carried  on  some  form  of  government  at 
times  independent,  at  others  in  a  tributary  or 
other  subject  relation  to  the  great  culture  land 
which  they  had  left  in  the  south.  The  later 
Assyrian  people  had  but  faint  memory  of  these 
times,  and  to  them,  as  to  us,  they  were  ancient 
days. 

At  about  1900  B.  C.  the  priest-prince  ruling 
in  Asshur  was  Bel-Kapkapu,  according  to  a 
statement  of  Adad-nirari  IV  (810-781),  a  later 
king  of  Assyria,  while  Esarhaddon  would  have 
us  believe  that  he  was  himself  a  direct  descendant 
of  a  king,  Bel-bani,  and,  though  we  may  put  no 
faith  in  such  genealogical  researches,  perhaps 
greater  credence  may  be  given  the  other  his¬ 
torical  statement  with  which  the  name  of  Bel- 
bani  is  followed.1  According  to  the  histori¬ 
ographers  of  Esarhaddon,  Bel-bani  was  the  first 
Ishakku  of  Asshur  who  adopted  the  title  of  king 
having  received  the  office  of  king  from  the  god 

1  Whatever  may  be  thought  of  Esarhaddon’s  statements  concerning 
Bal-bani,  there  is  at  least  evidence  that  a  king  of  this  name  actually 
existed,  for  Scheil  has  found  a  tablet  dated  in  the  reign  of  Bel-bani 
and  written  in  archaic  Babylonian  script  ( Recueil  de  Travaux,  xix, 

p.  59). 


t 


142  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


Marduk  himself.  If  there  be  any  truth  at  all 
in  these  statements,  we  must  see  in  Bel-bani  the 
first  king  of  Assyria,  but  the  fact  is  empty  of 
real  meaning,  whether  true  or  not,  for  we  know 
nothing  of  the  king’s  personality  or  works. 

With  Puzur  Ashir  I  we  come  again  upon 
stories  of  wall  building  and  a  record1  of  them  writ¬ 
ten  by  the  king  himself,  and  he  built  well  enough 
to  stand  through  three  reigns  until  Ashirbel- 
nisheshu2  restored  his  work.  Puzur  Ashir  was 
a  contemporary  of  Burnaburiash  I  of  Babylon, 
but  we  know  nothing  of  their  actual  relations. 

We  are  better  off,  in  this  respect,  when  we 
come  to  Ashirbelnisheshu  himself.  He  claims 
some  territory  in  Mesopotamia  and  makes  good 
his  claim  to  it.  He  makes  a  treaty  with  Karain- 
dash  of  Babylonia.  Assyria  is  now  clearly 
acknowledged  by  the  king  of  Babylonia  as  an 
independent  kingdom.  This  had  been  achieved 
not  apparently  in  hard  fought  battles,  but 
rather  by  the  growth  of  Assyrian  power  and  the 
simultaneous  weakening  of  Babylonia. 

After  these  names  of  shadowy  personalities 
there  comes  a  great  silent  period  of  above  two 
hundred  years,  in  which  we  hear  no  sound  of 
any  movements  in  Assyria,  nor  do  we  know  the 
name  of  even  one  ruler.  At  the  very  end  of  this 
period  (about  1480  B.  C.)  all  western  Asia  was 

1  See  his  Zigat  in  Andrae,  op.  cit.,  plate  LXXXVI,  and  Textband, 
p.  156. 

2  Zigat  of  Asirbelnisheshu,  Andrae,  op.  cit.,  plate  LXXXVI,  and 
Textband,  p.  156. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  ASSYRIA 


143 


shaken  to  its  foundations  by  an  Egyptian  inva¬ 
sion.  Thutmosis  III,1  freed  at  last  from  the 
restraint  of  Hatshepsowet,  his  peace-loving  half- 
sister,  had  swept  along  the  Mediterranean  coast 
to  Carmel  and  over  the  spur  of  the  hill  to  the 
plain  of  Esdraelon.  At  Megiddo  the  allies  met 
him  in  defense  of  Syria,  if  not  of  all  western 
Asia,  and  were  crushingly  defeated.  The  echo 
of  that  victory  resounded  even  in  Assyria,  and 
the  Assyrian  king  who  was  probably  Ashur- 
nadin-akhi  made  haste  to  send  a  “great  stone 
of  real  lapis  lazuli’ ’  and  other  less  valuable  gifts 
in  token  of  his  submission.  It  was  well  for 
Assyria  that  Thutmosis  was  satisfied  with  those 
gifts,  and  led  no  army  across  the  Euphrates. 

But  though  freed  from  Babylon  and  preserved 
from  Egypt,  the  Assyrian  kingdom  had  fallen 
under  a  new  domination.  Aryans  who  had  come 
into  the  hill  country  of  the  upper  valley  between 
the  Tigris  and  the  Euphrates,  had  already  begun 
to  build  the  kingdom  of  Mitanni  and  were  shortly 
able  to  exercise  control  over  a  part  of  the  ter¬ 
ritory  which  properly  belonged  to  Assyria. 
Shaushatar,  king  of  the  Mitanni,  even  entered 
the  city  of  Asshur  itself  and  carried  away  from  it 
a  gold  and  silver  door.2  The  city  of  Nineveh  was 

1  Hatshepsowet,  Thutmosis  II,  and  Thutmosis  III  reigned  together 
from  about  1501-1447  B.  C.  It  was  in  the  twenty-second  year  that 
the  advance  began  upon  Syria,  Thutmosis  III  being  then  sole  ruler 
of  Egypt.  See  Petrie,  History  of  Egypt  during  the  XVI Ith  and  XVlIIth 
Dynasties,  3d  ed.,  1899,  and  Steindorlf,  Die  Bliitezeit  des  Pharaonen 
Reichs.  Leipzig,  1900.  Breasted,  History  of  Egypt,  pp.  260,  ff. 

2  See  Winckler,  Mitteilungen  der  Deutsche  Orient  Gesellschaft,  No.  35, 
pp.  36,  38. 


144  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


completely  in  the  control  of  Shutarna  I,  king  of 
Mitanni,  for  he  was  able  to  send  the  statue  of 
the  goddess  Ishtar  on  a  journey  of  blessing  to 
Amenophis  III,  king  of  Egypt  (1414-1379  B.  C.) 
and  the  journey  was  repeated  under  Tushratta, 
his  son,  who  expressed  the  lively  hope  to  Ame¬ 
nophis  that  her  visit  might  bring  to  them  both 
a  life  of  a  hundred  thousand  years.1  This  was 
the  last  visit  of  the  goddess  to  Egypt  ;  henceforth 
her  people  were  able  to  defend  her  against  exile. 

Shortly  after  came  Ashur-uballit  II  (about 
1418-1370  B.  C.)  and  in  his  reign  there  were 
stirring  times.  His  daughter,  Muballitat- 
Sheru’a,  was  married  to  Karaindash  II,  the  king 
of  Babylon.  Herein  we  meet  for  the  first  time, 
in  real  form,  the  Assyrian  efforts  to  gain  control 
in  Babylonia.  The  son  of  this  union,  Kadash- 
man-Kharbe  II,  was  soon  upon  the  throne.  The 
Babylonian  people  must  have  suspected  intrigue, 
for  they  rebelled  and  killed  the  king.  This  was 
a  good  excuse  for  Assyrian  intervention,  for  the 
rebels  had  killed  the  grandson  of  the  king  of 
Assyria.  The  Assyrians  invaded  the  land,  and 
the  Babylonians  were  conquered,  and  another 
grandson  of  Ashur-uballit  was  placed  upon  the 
throne,  under  the  title  of  Kurigalzu  II.2  This 
act  made  Babylonia  at  least  partially  subject  to 
Assyria,  but  many  long  years  must  elapse  before 
any  such  subjection  would  be  really  acknowl- 


1  Knudtzon,  Die  El-Amarna  Tafeln,  No.  23,  lines  13-30. 

2  See  above,  vol.  i,  p.  521. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  ASSYRIA 


145 


edged  by  the  proud  Babylonians.  They  were 
already  subject  to  a  foreign  people,  the  Kassites, 
who  had  indeed  become  Babylonians  in  all 
respects,  but  it  would  be  a  greater  humiliation 
to  acknowledge  their  own  colonists,  the  Assy¬ 
rians,  a  bloodthirsty  people,  as  their  masters. 
Ashur-uballit  also  made  a  campaign  against 
the  Shubari,  a  people  dwelling  east  of  the  Tigris 
and  apparently  near  the  borders  of  Elam.1  But 
his  greatest  achievement  was  the  emancipation 
of  Assyria  from  Mitanni.  Dushratta  king  of 
Mitanni,  who  had  written  brave  and  bold  letters 
to  Egypt,  fell  in  an  uprising,  as  had  also  his 
brother  and  predecessor  Artash-shumara,  and 
now  anarchy  resulted.  The  opportunity  for 
Assyria  had  fully  come  and  Ashur-uballit  formed 
an  alliance  with  the  Alshe,  and  divided  with 
them  after  a  victorious  campaign  a  portion  of 
the  territory  of  Mitanni.  Assyria  was  now  fully 
mistress  in  her  own  house. 

Friendly  relations  between  Assyria  and  Egypt 
were  continued  during  his  reign,  and  letters2  of 
his  to  the  Egyptian  king  Amenophis  IV  have  been 
preserved,  in  which  occur  the  following  sen¬ 
tences:  “To  Napkhuriya3  .  .  .  king  of  Egypt 
my  brother:  Ashur-uballit,  king  of  Assyria, 
the  great  king  thy  brother.  To  thyself,  to  thy 

1  Limestone  tablet  of  Adad-nirari  I,  lines  28-33.  King,  Annals  of 
the  Kings  of  Assyria,  i,  p.  7. 

2  Published  by  Winckler,  Der  Thontafelfund  von  El-Amarna,  No.  9. 
Knudtzon,  Die  El-Amarna  Tafeln,  Nos.  15,  16. 

3  The  official  name  of  Amenophis  IV,  representing  the  Egyptian 
Neferkhepru-ra. 


146  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


house,  and  to  thy  country  let  there  be  peace. 
When  I  saw  thy  ambassadors  I  rejoiced  greatly 
.  .  .  A  chariot  .  .  .  and  two  white  horses,  .  .  . 
a  chariot  without  harness,  and  one  seal  of  beau¬ 
tiful  lapis  lazuli  I  have  sent  thee  as  a  present.” 
The  letter  then  proceeds  to  ask  very  frankly  for 
specific  and  very  large  gifts  in  return,  and  tells 
of  his  palace  building  at  home. 

In  the  reign  of  Ashur-uballit  Assyria  made  a 
distinct  advance  in  power  and  dignity,  and  this 
development  continued  during  the  reign  of 
Ashur-uballit’s  son  and  successor,  Ellil-nirari 
(Ellil-is-my-help) — about  1360  B.  C.  Of  him 
two  facts  have  come  down  to  us,  the  mutual 
relations  of  which  seem  to  be  as  follows:  Kuri- 
galzu  II  had  been  seated  on  the  Babylonian 
throne  by  the  Assyrians  and  therefore  owed 
them  much  gratitude,  but  to  assure  the  stability 
of  his  throne  he  must  needs  take  the  Babylonian 
rather  than  the  Assyrian  side  of  controversies 
and  difficulties  between  the  peoples.  The  grand¬ 
son  of  Ellil-nirari  boasts  concerning  him  that  he 
conquered  the  Kassites1  and  increased  the  ter¬ 
ritory  of  Assyria.  By  this  he  must  mean  not  the 
Kassite  rulers  of  Babylonia,  but  rather  the  people 
from  whom  they  had  come — that  is,  the  inhabi¬ 
tants  of  the  neighboring  Elamite  foothills.  This 
conquest  simply  carried  a  little  further  the 
acquisition  of  territory  toward  the  east  and 
south  which  had  been  begun  by  Ashur-uballit’s 


1  IV  R.  44,  line  24;  King,  op.  cit.,  p.  6. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  ASSYRIA 


147 


conquest  of  Shubari.  But  these  Assyrian  con¬ 
quests  led  to  Babylonian  jealousy  and  then  to 
a  conflict  between  Kurigalzu  II  and  Ellil-nirari, 
in  which  the  latter  was  victorious,  and  this,  in 
turn,  brought  about  a  re-arrangement  of  the 
boundary  line  by  which  the  two  kings  divided 
between  them  the  disputed  territory,1  though  it 
does  not  appear  which  was  the  gainer. 

Again  the  succession  to  the  throne  passed  from 
father  to  son,  and  Arik-den-ilu  (about  1310  B.  C.) 
reigned  in  Asshur.  He  has  left  us  only  brief 
inscriptions,2  in  which  he  boasts  of  building  at 
the  temple  of  Shamash,  probably  that  at  the 
capital  city.  From  his  son  we  learn  that  he  was 
a  warrior  of  no  mean  achievements,  though  our 
geographical  knowledge  is  not  sufficient  to  enable 
us  to  follow  his  movements  closely.  He  is  repre¬ 
sented  as  overrunning  the  lands  Turuki  and 
Nigimkhi,  and  conquering  the  princes  of  the 
land  of  Gutium.3  Besides  these  conquests  to  the 
north  of  the  city  of  Asshur  he  also  extended  his 
borders  toward  the  southwest  by  the  conquest 
of  the  nomad  people,  the  Sutu.  From  reign  to 
reign  we  see  the  little  kingdom  of  Asshur  grow. 
These  conquests  were  probably  not  much  more 
than  raids,  nor  is  it  likely  that  at  so  early  a 
period  a  serious  effort  was  made  by  the  Assy¬ 
rians  to  govern  the  territory  overrun.4  It  was 

1  Synchronistic  History,  col.  i,  lines  5-7. 

2  British  Museum,  No.  91059,  King,  Annals  of  the  Kings  of  Assyria, 
i,  p.  3.  The  name  of  this  king  was  formerly  read  Pudi-ilu. 

3  Inscription  of  Adad-nirari  I,  col.  i,  lines  16-18. 

4  It  is,  however,  to  be  noted  that  Assyrian  colonists  were  settled  in 


148  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


preparatory  work;  the  peoples  round  about 
Asshur  were  gradually  being  brought  to  know 
something  of  its  growing  power.  They  would 
soon  come  to  regard  it  as  a  mistress,  and  con¬ 
solidation  would  be  easy.  It  was  in  similar 
fashion  that  the  empire  of  Babylonia  had  grown 
to  its  position  of  influence. 

Arik-den-ilu  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Adad- 
nirari  I  (about  1300  B.  C.),  who  has  left  us  two 
records,  the  one  a  bronze  sword  inscribed  with 
his  name  and  titles,* 1  the  other  a  considerable 
inscription,2  carefully  dated  by  the  eponym 
name,  the  oldest  dated  Assyrian  inscription  yet 
found.  The  latter  is  largely  devoted  to  an 
account  of  the  enlargement  of  the  temple  of 
Ashur  in  the  capital,  his  wars  being  but  slightly 
mentioned.  In  the  enumeration  of  the  lands 
conquered  by  him  the  countries  already  over¬ 
run  by  his  predecessors  are  repeated — Shubari, 
the  Kassite  country,  and  Guti,  to  which  he  adds 
the  land  of  the  Lulumi.  The  fact  that  these 
lands  needed  so  soon  to  be  conquered  again 
shows  that  the  first  conquest  was  little  more 
than  a  raid.  But  this  time  a  distinct  advance 
was  made;  Adad-nirari  does  more  than  conquer. 
He  expressly  states  that  he  rebuilt  cities  in  this 


distant  countries  at  a  very  early  date.  The  Kappadokian  tablets 
would  seem  to  show  that  Assyrians  were  settled  near  Kaisariyeh  as 
early  as  1400  B.  C. 

1  See  Transactions  of  Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology,  iv,  p.  347. 

*  Published  IV  R.  p.  39,  translated  by  Peiser  in  Keilinschrift.  Bibl ., 
i,  pp.  5,  ff.,  and  by  King,  Annals,  i,  p.  4,  ff. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  ASSYRIA 


149 


conquered  territory1  which  had  been  devastated 
by  the  previous  conquests.  Here  is  evidence  of 
rule  rather  than  of  ruin,  and  in  this  incident  we 
may  find  the  real  beginnings  of  the  great  empire 
of  Assyria.  Again  there  were  difficulties  with 
Babylonia,  and  Adad-nirari  fought  with  Kuri- 
galzu  III  and  with  his  successor,  Nazi-Maruttash 
(1331-1305  B.  C.),  both  of  whom  he  conquered, 
according  to  Assyrian  accounts,2  though  the 
Babylonian  Chronicle  would  give  the  victory  to 
the  Babylonian  king,  in  the  first  case  at  least. 
In  the  inscription  of  the  bronze  sword  Adad- 
nirari  calls  himself  king  of  Kishshati,  a  title 
which  is  found  earlier  in  an  inscription  of  Ashur- 
uballit.3  He  does  not  call  himself  king  of  Asshur 
at  all,  though  this  title  is  given  by  him  to  his 
father  and  grandfather.  Apparently  he  seems 
to  claim  for  himself  a  greater  dignity  than  that 
of  ruler  merely  over  Asshur,  else  would  he  cer¬ 
tainly  have  called  himself  king  of  Asshur,  as  did 
his  predecessors.  But  his  own  description  gives 
us  no  means  of  determining  the  location  or  the 
bounds  of  the  territory  which  he  had  conquered 
or  over  which  he  claimed  rule. 

His  conquests  were  indeed  distinguished,  but 
they  were  built  upon  destruction,  and  their 
effects  were  subject  to  change  and  ultimately  to 
extinction;  but  some  of  the  great  construction 
work  of  his  at  the  capital  city  of  Asshur  far  out- 


1  Inscription  of  Adad-nirari,  col.  i,  3,  4. 

*  Synchronistic  History,  col.  i,  lines  24-31. 

3  Scheil,  Recueil ,  xix,  p.  46. 


150  HISTORY  OB  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

lasted  them.  It  was  he  who  built  the  great  wall 
along  the  eastern  or  river  front  of  the  city,  and 
capped  it  with  a  quay.  Even  to  our  own  day 
the  bricks  which  he  then  laid  are  still  to  be  seen. 
They  have  guarded  the  city  against  the  sweep¬ 
ing  currents  of  a  swift  river  for  more  than  three 
thousand  two  hundred  years.  At  that  quay 
were  laid  boats  in  his  day,  and  there  also  have 
modern  explorers  moored  their  motor  boats. 
He  might  well  describe  such  work  as  this  upon 
imperishable  clay,  and  stamp  his  name  again 
and  again  upon  the  bricks  of  which  it  was 
composed.1  When  his  reign  closed,  he  left 
Assyria  and  its  dependencies  far  stronger  than 
when  he  took  the  government  into  his  own  hands. 

His  son  Shalmaneser  I,  was  his  worthy 
successor.  From  his  own  historiographers  we 
had  but  little  until  quite  recently;  for  a  long 
time  indeed,  only  two  broken  tablets,2  but 
the  excavations  at  Asshur  have  supplied  us 
with  a  long  and  magnificent  document,  as 
well  as  with  some  smaller  ones,3  and  the  fame 
of  his  great  deeds  called  forth  more  than  one 

1  For  the  description  see  Adadnirari’s  Quay-wall  inscription  in  Andrae, 
Festungswerke,  etc.,  plate  LXXXIX,  and  Textband,  p.  161 ;  where 
also  are  reproduced  specimens  of  the  various  forms  of  his  inscriptions 
upon  the  building  bricks,  sometimes  with  one  line,  and  again  with 
two  and  even  three. 

2  Published  I  R.  6,  No.  iv,  translated  by  Schrader,  Keilinschrift, 
Bibl.,  i,  pp.  8,  9.  The  second  is  published  by  Lenormant,  Choix  de 
textes,  p.  170,  No.  73,  and  by  Winckler,  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie, 
ii,  p.  313,  and  plate  No.  7.  King,  Annals,  etc.,  i,  p.  13. 

3  Messerschmidt,  Keilschrifttexte  aus  Assur,  i,  Nos.  14,  15,  69.  Com¬ 
pare  Luckenbill,  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages  and  Lit¬ 
eratures,  xxviii,  pp.  184,  ff. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  ASSYRIA 


151 


mention  from  later  kings/  and  these  will  en¬ 
able  us  to  reconstruct  the  main  portion  of 
his  achievements.  The  general  direction  of 
his  conquests  was  toward  the  northwest.  This 
would  seem  to  imply  that  the  policy  of  his 
father  had  been  successful,  and  that  the  terri¬ 
tory  toward  the  northeast  and  the  southeast 
was  peacefully  subject  to  Assyria.  He  pushed 
rather  into  the  great  territory  of  the  valley 
between  the  Tigris  and  the  Euphrates,  and 
therein  established  colonies  as  a  bulwark  of 
defense  against  the  nomadic  populations  of 
the  farther  north.  Still  farther  westward  the 
land  of  Musri  was  also  subjected.  This  land 
lay  north  of  Syria,  close  to  Mount  Amanus, 
and  hence  very  near  to  the  great  Mediter¬ 
ranean  Sea.  To  reach  it  Shalmaneser  must 
cross  the  Euphrates — the  first  time  that  Assyrian 
power  had  crossed  the  great  river.  Subse¬ 
quent  events  show  that  the  more  westerfy 
parts  of  the  land  which  he  conquered  were 
not  really  added  to  the  Assyrian  state.  As 
in  the  case  of  Shubari,  so  also  in  this,  other 
invasions  would  be  necessary.  But  this  at 
least  had  been  gained,  the  rapidly  growing 
kingdom  was  firmly  established  as  far  as  the 
Balikh,  and  perhaps  even  to  the  Euphrates 
beyond. 

In  these  campaigns  his  greatest  victories, 

1  Especially  by  Ashurnazirpal  (I  R.  28,  and  III  R.  4,  No.  1).  See 
Delitzsch;  Die  Sprachc  der  Kossder ,  pp.  10,  ff.;  Hommel,  Geschichte, 
pp.  437,  ff. 


152  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

in  respect  of  after  effects,  were  against  the 
kingdom  of  Mitanni.  He  is  most  proud  of 
this  and  celebrates  in  dithyrambic  phrase  his 
overwhelming  victory.  “When  at  the  com¬ 
mand  of  the  great  gods,  with  the  exalted  powers 
of  Ashur,  my  lord,  I  advanced  against  the  land 
of  Khanigalbat,  over  difficult  roads  and  narrow 
passes  I  forced  my  way,  I  surrounded  Shat- 
tuara,  king  of  Khani,  the  army  of  Hittites  and 
Aramaeans1  with  him.  He  seized  the  passes 
and  my  water  supply.  For  thirst’s  sake  and 
for  a  camping  ground  my  army  bravely  ad¬ 
vanced  against  the  masses  of  their  troops 
and  I  fought  a  battle  and  accomplished  their 
defeat.  Numbers  beyond  count  of  his  wide 
spreading  soldiers  I  killed.  Against  him,  at 
the  spear  point,  unto  the  setting  of  the  sun 
I  waged  battle.  I  devastated  their  lands. 
Fourteen  thousand  four  hundred  of  them  I 
overthrew  and  took  alive  captive.  Nine  of 
his  strongholds  (and)  his  capital  city  I  cap¬ 
tured.  One  hundred  and  eighty  of  his  cities 
I  overturned  to  mounds  and  ruins.  The  army 
of  Hittites  and  Aramaeans,  his  allies,  I  slaugh¬ 
tered  like  sheep.”2  The  style  of  his  boasting 
became  a  standard  and  for  centuries  one  As- 

1  The  Assyrian  word  here  translated  Aramaeans  is  Akhlami,  a  term 
of  contempt  like  “barbarians,”  applied  especially  to  the  Aramaeans 
who  were  still  half-nomadic.  See  Schiffer,  Die  Aramaer,  p.  15,  ff. 

2  Stone  Inscription,  col.  ii,  lines  16-40.  The  text  is  in  Messerschmidt, 
Keilschnfttexte  aus  Assur,  i,  pp.  20,  If.,  and  transliteration  and  trans¬ 
lation  in  Luckenbill,  American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages,  xxviii, 
pp.  188,  189. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  ASSYRIA 


153 


Syrian  monarch  after  another  reproduced  its 
phrases.  But  however  repellent  his  words, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  substantial  re¬ 
sults.  The  kingdom  of  Mitanni  gave  no  further 
trouble  to  those  who  had  once  been  its  subjects. 

Small  wonder  is  it  that  a  conqueror  of  such 
prowess  and  an  organizer  of  such  ability  should 
deem  it  necessary  to  build  a  new  capital  worth}^ 
of  so  great  a  kingdom.  The  city  of  Asshur 
was  old,  and  its  location  was  far  south,  too 
near  the  old  Babylonian  border.  A  kingdom 
that  was  growing  northward  and  westward 
needed  a  capital  more  nearly  central  in  loca¬ 
tion.  Shalmaneser  I  determined  to  erect  his 
new  capital  at  Calah,  at  the  junction  of  the 
Upper  Zab  with  the  Euphrates,  and  about 
forty  miles  north  of  Asshur,  and  so  pitched 
upon  a  site  which  remained  the  capital  of 
his  country  for  centuries. 

But  his  attention  to  the  erection  of  a  new 
capital  did  not  diminish  his  devotion  to  the 
thrice  sacred  shrines  of  Asshur.  In  his  reign 
the  temple  of  the  god  Ashur  fell  a  prey  to 
the  flames.  He  was  quick  to  rebuild  it,  and 
tells  in  warm  words  how  its  history  went  back 
to  Ushpia,  earliest  known  name  among  the 
rulers  of  Assyria,  and  how  Shamshi-Adad  had 
restored  it.  Now  it  was  a  heap  of  ruins,  and 
his  love  and  loyalty  to  the  god  was  sufficient 
for  the  great  task  which  now  was  his.  He 
tore  its  ruins  away  to  the  ancient  foundations, 


154  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


and  from  there  to  its  roof  rebuilt  it  in  greater 
size  and  magnificence.  The  records  of  former 
kings  found  in  its  walls  he  anointed  with  oil, 
and  having  celebrated  them  with  libations, 
restored  them  to  their  ancient  places.1 

In  peace  as  in  war,  a  man  of  foresight  and 
skill,  like  his  father,  he  left  Assyria  the  greater 
for  his  living  and  ruling. 

In  the  reign  of  his  son  and  successor,  Tukulti- 
Ninib2 1  (about  1289  B.  C.),  the  irresistible  prog¬ 
ress  of  the  Assyrian  arms  reached  a  glorious 
climax. 

He  tells  of  his  exploits  in  words  less  boast¬ 
ful  and  more  matter  of  fact  than  his  father, 
and  groups  them  apparently  rather  by  the 
points  of  the  compass  than  by  the  progress 
of  the  months,  or  years.  His  first  campaign, 
however,  is  definitely  dated  as  coming  in  the 
first  year  of  his  reign,  and  it  carried  him  into 
the  north  and  the  northeast  among  the  Kuti. 
These  were  conquered  and  he  is  able  to  add: 
“the  tribute  of  their  mountains  and  the  wealth 
of  their  highlands  every  year  in  my  city  of 

1  Stone  Tablet  of  Shalmaneser  I,  col.  iv,  1,  IT. 

2  The  chief  records  of  the  reign  of  Tukulti  Ninib  I  are  (a)  The  Annals 

of  Tukulti  Ninib,  Limestone  Slab,  15|  inches  in  height  by  11^  in 
width,  and  about  14  in  thickness.  British  Museum,  first  published 
by  King,  Records  of  the  Reign  of  Tukulti-N inib  I.  London,  1904.  (b) 

Two  alabaster  slabs  found  at  Asshur,  Messerschmidt,  Keilschrifttexte 
aus  Assur,  Nos.  16,  17.  (c)  A  zigat  with  wall  and  moat  inscription. 

Messerschmidt,  op.  cit.,  No.  18,  and  Andrae,  Die  Festungswerke  von 
Assur.  Plate  XCIII  and  Textband,  p.  163.  (d)  The  Palace  Inscrip¬ 

tion  (badly  broken),  Andrae,  op.  cit.,  plate  XCII,  and  Textband,  pp. 
164,  165,  with  restorations  by  Delitzsch.  (e)  Seal  inscription,  King, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  106,  ff.  See  also  above,  vol.  i,  pp.  504,  505. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  ASSYRIA 


155 


Asshur  I  received."1  “At  that  time,"  as  he 
next  says,  he  went  also  into  the  west  and 
northwest,  and  the  “broad  land  of  Shubari" 
suffered  again  as  it  had  done  at  the  hands  of 
his  predecessors.  Upon  these  conquests  came 
also  the  fall  of  forty  kings  of  the  lands  of  Nairi, 
so  that  the  far  north  felt  his  heavy  hand. 
These  were  events  of  high  consequence  indeed, 
but  their  effect  upon  the  imagination  is  small 
when  compared  with  what  he  has  next  to 
describe. 

There  had  once  more  arisen  trouble  between 
the  two  states  of  Assyria  and  Babylonia.  Per¬ 
haps  it  was  the  old  and  vexed  boundary  ques¬ 
tion,  which  would  not  down;  perhaps  the 
never-forgotten  restless  ambition  of  the  As¬ 
syrians  to  rule  at  Babylon.  Whatever  the 
cause  or  excuse  Tukulti-Ninib  invaded  Baby¬ 
lonia  with  force  sufficient  to  overwhelm  its 
defenders  and  the  imperial  capital  was  taken. 
Kashtiliash  II,  king  of  Babylon,  was  humiliated 
beyond  all  his  predecessors.2  After  an  un¬ 
exampled  career  of  power  and  of  civilization 
Babylon  had  fallen  and  the  Assyrian  plunderer 
was  among  her  ruins.  Tukulti-Ninib  laid  low 
a  part  of  the  city  wall,  even  then  massive, 
killed  some  of  the  defenders,  and  plundered 
the  temple,  carrying  away  into  Assyria  the 
image  of  the  great  god  Marduk.  This  was 


1  Annals,  obverse  lines  11-13. 

2  See  above,  p.  123. 


156  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


no  mere  raid,  but  a  genuine  conquest  of  the 
city,  which  was  now  governed  from  Calah. 
Assyrian  officers  were  stationed  both  in  the 
north  and  in  the  south  of  the  country.  Tukulti- 
Ninib  adopts  the  title  of  king  of  Sumer  and 
Accad  in  addition  to  his  former  titles,  king  of 
Kishshati  and  king  of  Asshur.  In  his  person 
were  now  united  the  latest  Assyrian  title  and 
one  of  the  most  ancient  titles  in  the  world. 
The  old  and  coveted  land  of  Sumer  and  Accad, 
the  conquest  of  which  by  Hammurapi  had 
been  the  very  making  of  his  empire,  was  now 
ruled  from  the  far  north.  A  curious  evidence 
of  the  rule  of  Tukulti-Ninib  in  Babylon  itself 
was  found  by  Sennacherib,  probably  during  the 
second  attack  upon  the  city  (689  B.  C.). 
Tukulti-Ninib  had  sent  to  Babylon  a  seal 
inscribed  with  his  name,  and  this  was  taken 
to  Assyria.1  For  seven  years  only  was  this 
rule  over  Babylonia  maintained.  The  Baby¬ 
lonians  rebelled,  drove  out  the  Assyrian  con¬ 
queror,  and  set  up  once  more  a  Babylonian, 
Adad-shum-usur  (about  1243-1213  B.  C,),  as 
king  over  them. 

In  the  greatest  works  of  peace  also  was 
Tukulti-Ninib  famous.  He  thought  to  imitate 
Shalmaneser  I  and  found  a  new  city  to  be 
called  Kar-Tukulti-Ninib,  and  his  first  care 

1  These  facts  come  from  a  thirteen-line  fragmentary  inscription  of 
Sennacherib  III,  R.  4,  No.  2,  translated  by  Smith,  Records  of  the  Past, 
First  Series,  v,  pp.  85,  86.  Comp.  Bezold,  Uebersicht,  pp.  15,  16. 
See  above,  vol.  i,  pp.  325,  326. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  ASSYRIA 


157 


was  to  build  a  temple  for  “Ashur  and  Adad 
and  Shamash  and  Ninib  and  Nusku  and  Nergal 
and  Imina-bi  and  Islrtar,”  and  to  it  dug  a 
canal  from  the  river.  He  then  proceeds  to 
tell  how:  uin  the  midst  of  that  city  earth  in 
abundance  beside  the  god  Nabu  did  I  set, 
and  for  one  hundred  and  twenty  tippi  on 
high  I  piled  it.  Above  these  tippi  a  palace 
corresponding  to  its  size,  a  mighty  house,  I 
built  for  my  royal  habitation.”1  When  we  read 
these  words  we  perceive  that  he  was  not  really 
building  an  entirely  new  city,  but  rather  erect¬ 
ing  a  great  new  quarter  in  the  city  of  Asshur, 
northwest  of  the  temple  of  Nabu.  There  the 
explorer’s  spade  has  unearthed  an  immense 
terrace  on  which  this  palace  stood,  and  beyond 
it  the  massive  walls  and  deep  moat  to  which 
he  makes  reference  in  another  text.2  No  king 
before  him  had  built  in  equal  massiveness,  and 
well  might  he  attempt  to  call  his  new  city 
quarter  after  his  own  name.  But  time  took 
its  wonted  revenge,  and  the  name  Ashur 
survived  while  men  sought  elsewhere  for  his 
city. 

When  Tukulti-Ninib  returned  to  Assyria 
after  his  unsuccessful  effort  to  maintain  his 
authority  in  the  south,  he  found  even  his  own 
people  in  rebellion  under  the  leadership  of  his 
son.  In  the  civil  war  that  followed  he  lost 


1  Annals,  Reverse  lines  11-14. 

2  Messerschmidt,  op.  cit.,  No.  18,  and  Andrae,  op.  cit.,  p.  163. 


158  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


his  life,  and  the  most  brilliant  reign  in  Assyrian 
history  up  to  that  time  was  closed. 

Up  to  this  point  the  progress  of  the  Assyrians 
had  been  steady  and  rapid.  The  few  Semitic 
colonists  from  Babylonia  had  so  completely 
overwhelmed  the  original  inhabitants  of  their 
land  that  the  latter  made  no  impression  on 
Assyrian  life  or  history,  and  in  this  alone 
they  had  achieved  more  than  the  Babylonians, 
after  a  much  longer  history  and  with  greater 
opportunities.  We  have  seen  how  the  Baby¬ 
lonians  were  influenced  by  the  Sumerian  civ¬ 
ilization  and  by  the  Sumerian  people.  After¬ 
ward  they  were  first  conquered  by  the  Kas- 
sites  and  then  so  completely  amalgamated  with 
them  that  they  ceased  to  be  a  pure  Semitic 
race.  Thus  the  influences  of  Semitism  could 
not  be  perpetuated  and  disseminated  by  the 
Babylonians,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
Assyrians  suffered  no  intermixture.  The  latter 
had  already  so  gained  control  of  the  fine  terri- 
tor}^  which  they  first  invaded,  as  to  be  absolute 
masters  of  it.  Under  them  the  land  of  Assyria 
had  become  Semitic.  More  than  this,  they 
had  gained  sufficient  influence  by  conquest 
over  the  older  Aramaean  peoples  toward  the 
southeast,  between  them  and  the  Kassites  and 
the  Babylonians,  as  to  take  from  the  Baby¬ 
lonians  the  Semitic  leadership.  Their  colonies 
in  the  upper  Mesopotamian  valley  were  cen¬ 
ters  of  Semitic  influence  and  stood  as  a  great 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  ASSYRIA 


159 


bulwark  against  the  non-Semitic  influences  on 
the  north.  By  crossing  the  Euphrates  and  con¬ 
quering  the  land  of  Musri  they  had  also  threat¬ 
ened  the  older  Semitic  civilizations  in  Syria 
and  Palestine.  Would  they  be  able  to  wrest 
the  power  from  them,  as  they  had  from  the 
eastern  Aramaeans  and  from  the  Babylonians? 
If  this  could  be  done,  the  Assyrians  would  hold 
in  their  hands  the  destinies  of  the  Semitic 
race.  It  seemed  as  though  they  were  to  accom¬ 
plish  even  this,  when  they  were  suddenly 
checked  by  the  successful  rebellion  of  the 
Babylonians,  by  civil  war,  and  by  the  death  of 
their  great  leader.  This  reverse  might  mean 
their  permanent  overthrow  if  the  Babylonian 
people  still  had  in  their  veins  the  courage, 
the  dash,  and  the  rugged  independence  of 
the  desert  Semite.  If,  however,  the  inter¬ 
mixture  of  Sumerian  and  Kassite  blood,  not 
to  mention  lesser  strains,  had  weakened  the 
Semitic  powers  of  the  Babylonians,  the  check 
to  Assyria  might  be  only  temporary.  It  is 
a  critical  day  in  the  history  of  the  race.  The 
severity  of  the  blow  to  Assyria  is  evidenced 
not  only  by  the  results  in  Babylonia,  but  no 
less  by  the  fragmentary  character  of  Assyrian 
annals  for  a  long  time.  It  is,  indeed,  for  a 
time  difficult  not  only  to  learn  the  course  of 
events  in  Assyria,  but  even  the  names  and 
order  of  the  kings. 

The  successor  of  Tukulti-Ninib  on  the  throne 


160  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


of  Assyria  was  his  son,  Ashurnazirpal  I,  who 
had  led  the  rebellion  against  him.  In  his 
reign  the  ruin  of  Assyrian  fortunes  which  began 
in  his  father’s  defeat  and  death  went  rapidly 
on.  The  Babylonian  king,  Adad-shum-usur,  felt 
himself  strong  enough  to  follow  up  the  advantage 
already  gained  by  the  restoration  of  his  family 
to  power,  and  actually  attacked  Assyria,  from 
which  he  was  only  with  difficulty  repulsed. 

The  next  Assyrian  kings  were  Ashur-narara 
IV  and  Nabu-dan1  (about  1250  B.  C.),  of 
whose  reigns  we  know  nothing,  although  we 
are  able  to  infer  from  the  sequel  that  the  As¬ 
syrian  power  continued  to  wane,  while  the 
Babylonian  increased.  The  reigns  were  short, 
and  were  soon  succeeded  probably  by  Tukulti- 
Ashur,  in  whose  reign  Assyrian  power  had  so 
dwindled  that  the  statue  of  Marduk,  which 
had  been  sixteen  years  in  exile  in  Assyria, 
went  back  again  to  Babylon,  and  the  Assyrians 
dared  not  oppose  its  departure.2  After  him 
came  Bel-kudur-usur  and  Ninib-apal-esharra,  in 
whose  day  the  Babylonians  under  the  leader¬ 
ship  of  Meli-Shipak  and  Marduk-apal-iddina  in¬ 
vaded  Assyria  and  stripped  the  once  powerful 
kingdom  of  all  its  southern  and  part  at  least 
of  its  northern  and  western  conqured  territory. 
Apparently  all  was  lost  that  the  Assyrian  kings 

1  The  names  of  these  two  kings  are  secured  from  a  letter  of  Adad 
shum-usur  of  Babylon.  See  the  text  III  R.  4,  No.  5,  and  compare 
Budge  and  King,  Amials  of  the  Kings  of  Assyria,  i,  p.  .xxii. 

2  Babylonian  Chronicle  P,  col.  iv,  line  12. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  ASSYRIA 


161 


of  the  earlier  day  had  won,  and  the  end  of 
Assyrian  leadership  had  come,  but  the  motive 
force  of  the  Assyrians  was  not  destroyed. 

The  successor  of  Ninib-apal-esharra  was 
Ashurdan  (about  1167  B.  C.),  and  with  him 
begins  the  rehabilitation  of  Assyrian  power. 
He  crossed  the  river  Zab,  and  invading  the 
territory  which  had  been  for  some  time  con¬ 
sidered  Babylonian,  restored  a  small  section  of 
it  to  Assyria.  We  know  little  else  of  his  reign, 
but  this  is  sufficient  to  mark  the  turning  point 
and  explain  what  follows.  His  great-grandson, 
Tiglathpileser,  boasts  of  him  that  he  “attained 
to  gray  hairs  and  a  ripe  old  age.”1  In  his 
reign  the  rugged  virtues  of  the  Assyrians  were 
preparing  for  the  reawakening  which  was  soon 
to  come.  Of  the  following  reign  of  his  son, 
Mutakkil-Nusku2 3  (about  1155  B.  C.),  we  have 
no  information,  though  we  are  probably  safe 
in  the  supposition  that  his  father’s  work  was 
continued,  for  we  find  in  Babylonian  history, 
as  has  been  seen,  no  evidence  of  any  weaken¬ 
ing  of  Assyria,  but  rather  the  contrary.  The 
gain  in  the  Assyrian  progress  is  shown  more 
clearly  by  the  reign  of  his  son,  Ashur-rish-ishr 

1  Prism  inscription  of  Tiglathpileser  I,  col.  vii,  line  54.  Budge  and 
King,  Annals  of  the  Kings  of  Assyria,  i,  p.  94. 

2  He  is  mentioned  by  Tiglathpileser  I  (Prism  inscription,  col.  vii, 
lines  45-48)  and  has  left  us  a  brief  inscription  (George  Smith,  Assyrian 
Discoveries,  pp.  142,  251). 

3  The  British  Museum  has  three  building  inscriptions  of  Ashur- 
rish-ishi  published  by  Budge  and  King,  Armais  of  the  Kings  of  Assyria, 
i,  pp.  17-26.  These  also  contain  brief  notices  of  the  king’s  conquests. 


162  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


(about  1150  B.  C.),  who  is  introduced  to  us 
very  fittingly  as  “the  powerful  king,  the  con¬ 
queror  of  hostile  lands,  the  subduer  of  all  the 
evil.”1  The  beginning  of  his  conquests  was 
made  by  a  successful  campaign  against  the 
Lulumi  and  the  Kuti,  who  have  found  mention 
more  than  once  before.  They  must  have 
either  become  independent,  during  the  period 
of  Assyria’s  decline,  or  perhaps  have  been 
added  to  the  restored  Babylonian  empire.  Hav¬ 
ing  thus  made  sure  of  the  territory  on  the 
south  and  east,  Ashur~rish~ishi  was  ready  to 
meet  the  great  and  hereditary  foe  of  Babylon. 
Nebuchadrezzar  I  was  now  king  in  Babylon, 
and,  flushed  with  recent  victory  over  a  por¬ 
tion  of  Elam,  was  a  dangerous  antagonist. 
The  issue  between  the  kings  seems  to  have 
been  joined  not  in  the  old  land  of  Babylonia 
south  of  Assyria,  but  in  Mesopotamia,  and 
the  Assyrians  were  victorious. 

Though  deeply  absorbed  in  war  he  found 
time  for  one  great  work  of  peace.  On  the 
northwest  boundary  of  the  city  of  Asshur  and 
beside  the  great  terrace  and  palace  of  Tukulti- 
Ninib  he  laid  the  foundations  of  a  double 
temple  to  be  dedicated  to  the  gods  Anu  and 
Adad.  The  like  of  this  had  surely  never  been 
seen  before,  that  two  complete  temples  to 
two  gods  should  be  united  in  one  vast  con¬ 
struction.  He  set  the  fagade  toward  the  city, 


1  Annals  of  Tiglathpileser,  vii,  42-44,  published  I  R.  15. 


THE  BEGINNINGS  OF  ASSYRIA 


163 


with  the  single  door  between  two  low  towers 
facing  southeast.  Within  this  door  the  ad¬ 
vancing  worshiper  would  find  an  oblong  court 
open  to  the  sky,  apd  beyond  its  ample  space 
two  doors;  the  right  hand  door  gave,  it  is 
supposed,  into  the  temple  of  Anu,  which  had 
five  rooms,  and  the  left  hand  door  into  the 
temple  of  Adad,  which  had  likewise  five  rooms. 
In  each  case  there  were  two  principal  rooms, 
with  the  three  subordinate  rooms  about  them. 
The  temple  arrangement  was  therefore  similar 
to  the  Hebrew,  a  court,  a  holy  place,  and  the 
most  holy  place.  On  the  northeast  and  on  the 
southwest  corners  were  temple-towers  or  Zikurats, 
rising  in  pyramidal  form  in  four  stages  reached  by 
ramps.  The  chief  material  used  for  construction 
was  a  large  sun-dried  brick  about  fifteen  inches 
square  and  four  inches  thick.  Upon  these  the 
king  had  stamped  the  legend:  “Ashurrishishi, 
priest  of  Ashur,  builder  of  the  temple  of  Adad 
and  of  the  god  Anu.”  The  material  was  poor 
and  the  building  was  not  likely  to  last  long, 
though  the  foundations  are  still  discoverable  in 
our  own  day.1  Ashur-rish-ishi  could  not  finish 
his  ambitious  plan,  and  left  the  incomplete 
structure  to  his  greater  son. 

Ashur-rish-ishi  was  succeeded  by  his  son, 
Tiglathpileser  I  (Tukulti-pal-esharra,  My  help 
is  the  son  of  Esharra — that  is,  My  help  is  the 

1  For  an  elaborate  account  of  the  temple  see  Walter  Andrac,  Dor 
Anu-Adad  Tcmpel  in  Assur.  Leipzig,  1909. 


164  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


god  Ashur).  There  was  therefore  no  break 
in  the  succession  and  no  new  dynasty  begins. 
Nevertheless,  a  new  period  of  Assyrian  history 
really  commences  with  the  next  king.  With 
Ashur-rish-ishi  ends  the  first  period  of  growth 
and  decay  and  of  renaissance.  To  his  son  he 
left  a  kingdom  almost  as  great  as  Assyria  had 
yet  possessed.  Tiglathpileser  begins  to  reign 
with  the  titles  of  king  of  Kishshati  and  king 
of  Asshur;  the  only  title  belonging  to  his  an¬ 
cestors  which  he  did  not  possess  was  king  of 
Sumer  and  Accad.  With  him  we  enter  upon 
a  wonderful  period  in  the  career  of  the  Assyrian 
people. 


CHAPTER  II 

TIGLATHPILESER  I  AND  HIS  SONS 

Tiglathpileser  I  (about  1120  B.  C.)  was 
the  grand  monarch  of  western  Asia  in  his  day, 
and  the  glory  of  his  achievements  was  held 
in  memory  in  Assyria  for  ages  after.  It  is  fitting 
that  one  who  wrought  such  marvels  in  peace 
and  war  should  have  caused  his  deeds  to  be 
written  down  with  care  and  preserved  in  more 
than  one  copy.* 1  To  his  gods  he  ascribed  the 

1  The  chief  source  of  knowledge  of  the  reign  of  Tiglathpileser  is  found 
in  the  eight-sided  prism,  four  copies  of  which  were  found  at  Kalah 
Shergat,  two  in  excellent  preservation  and  two  in  fragments.  The 
text  is  substantially  the  same  in  all  the  copies  and  is  published  I  R. 
9-16,  and  in  Winckler,  Sammlung  von  Keilschrifttexten,  i,  plates  1-25. 
It  is  transliterated  and  translated  in  Lotz,  Die  Inschriften  Tiglath- 
pileser's  I,  Leipzig,  1880,  and  also  by  Winckler,  in  Keilinschrift.  Bibl ., 

i,  pp.  14-47.  There  is  an  English  translation  by  Professor  Sayce, 
with  useful  geographical  notes,  in  Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series,  i, 
92-121.  There  is  a  new  and  improved  edition  in  Budge  and  King, 
Annals  of  the  Kings  of  Assyria,  i,  pp.  27-108.  This  was  the  text  used 
by  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society  to  demonstrate  the  correctness  of  the 
method  of  decipherment.  See  above,  vol.  i,  pp.  241-243.  Besides 
this  fine  prism  there  have  also  been  preserved  some  fragmentary  annals 
of  the  first  ten  years  of  his  reign  erroneously  ascribed  originally  to 
Ashur-rish-ishi  and  published  III  R.  5,  Nos.  1-5,  and  by  Winckler, 
Sammlung ,  pp.  26-29.  Notes  upon  portions  of  them  are  given  by 
Lotz,  op.  cit .,  pp.  193,  194,  and  by  Bruno  Messnier,  Zeitschrift  fur  As- 
syriologie,  ix,  pp.  101,  ff.,  and  they  are  republished  by  Budge  and  King, 
op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  109-126.  The  names  and  titles  of  the  king  are  given  in 
two  brief  texts  found  at  the  so-called  grotto  of  Sebeneh-Su  (III  R.  4, 
No.  6;  Schrader,  Die  Keilinschriften  am  Eingange  der  Quellgrotte  des 
Sebeneh-Su,  Berlin,  1885;  Winckler,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  i,  pp.  48,  49), 
and  at  Kalah  Shergat  (I  R.  6,  No.  V;  Winckler,  Sammlung,  p.  31), 
and  they  are  republished  by  Budge  and  King,  op.  cit.,  pp.  127,  ff. 

165 


16G  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


credit  of  his  works.  Their  names,  a  formidable 
number,  stand  at  the  very  head  of  the  chief 
written  memorials  of  his  reign.  Here  are  Ashur, 
the  ancient  patron  deity  of  his  land,  “the 
great  lord,  the  director  of  the  hosts  of  the 
gods/’  and  Bel  also,  and  Sin,  the  moon  god; 
Shamash,  the  sun  god;  Adad,  the  god  of  the 
air,  of  storms,  of  thunder,  and  rain;  Ninib, 
“the  hero;”  and,  last  of  all,  the  goddess  Ishtar, 
“the  chief est  among  the  gods,”  whose  name 
was  ever  to  resound  and  be  hallowed  in  the 
later  history  of  Nineveh.1  With  so  great  a 
pantheon  had  the  people  of  Assyria  already 
enriched  themselves. 

The  annals  of  the  king  show  that  he  planned 
his  campaigns  well  and  had  a  definite  aim  in 
each  struggle  against  his  enemies.  When  he 
ascended  the  throne  Babylonia  was  too  weak 
to  interfere  with  his  labor  of  building  up  anew 
the  Assyrian  empire,  and  no  immediate  cam¬ 
paign  southward  was  therefore  necessary.  On 
the  other  hand,  there  was  a  threatening  situa¬ 
tion  in  the  north  and  west.  The  nomadic  tribes, 
established  in  the  hill  country  above  the  Me¬ 
sopotamian  valley,  northward  of  Harran,  had 
never  been  really  subdued,  and  some  fresh 
effort  had  to  be  made  to  hold  them  in  check 
or  the  integrity  of  the  kingdom  might  be  en¬ 
dangered.  The  tribe  that  was  now  most 
threatening  was  the  Mushke.  This  people  was 


1 1  R.  9,  1-14. 


TIGLATHPILESEK  I  AND  HIS  SONS  167 


settled  in  the  territory  north  of  Milid,  the 
modern  Malatiyeh,  on  both  sides  of  the  upper 
waters  of  the  Euphrates.  In  later  times  they 
became  famous  as  the  Moschi1  of  the  Greeks, 
and  the  Meshech2 3  of  the  Old  Testament,  being 
in  both  cases  associated  with  the  Tubal  or 
Tibareni,  who  at  this  period  lived  toward  the 
south  and  west,  inhabiting  a  portion  of  the 
territory  later  known  as  Cappadocia.  The 
Mushke  had  crossed  the  Euphrates  southward 
and  possessed  themselves  of  the  districts  of 
Alzi  and  Purukhuzzi  about  fifty  years  before, 
in  the  period  of  Assyria’s  weakness.  The 
Assyrians  had  once  overrun  this  very  territory 
and  claimed  presents  for  the  god  Ashur  from 
its  inhabitants,  but  it  was  now  fully  in  the 
control  of  the  Mushke,  and  had  for  these  fifty 
years  been  paying  tribute  to  them,  and  not 
to  the  Assyrians.  Feeling  their  strength,  and 
unopposed  by  any  other  king,  the  Mushke,  to 
the  number  of  about  twenty  thousand,  in  five 
bands,  invaded  the  land  of  Kummukh  (Com- 
magene).  Here  was  indeed  a  dangerous  situa¬ 
tion  for  Assyria,  for  if  these  people  were  un¬ 
checked,  they  would  not  long  be  satisfied  with 
the  possession  of  this  northern  part  of  Kum¬ 
mukh,  but  would  seize  it  all,  and  perhaps 
invade  the  land  of  Assyria  itself.  Trusting  in 
Ashur,  his  lord,  Tiglathpileser  hastily  assem- 


2  Herodotus,  iii,  94;  vii,  78. 

3  Gen.  x,  2;  Ezek.  xxvii,  13;  xxxviii,  2. 


168  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


bled  an  army  and  marched  against  them. 
He  must  cross  the  rough  and  wild  Mount 
Masius  and  descend  upon  his  enemies  among 
the  head  waters  of  the  Tigris.  How  large  a 
force  of  men  he  led  in  this  venture  we  do  not 
know,  but  his  victory  was  overwhelming.  Of 
the  twenty  thousand  men  who  opposed  him 
but  six  thousand  remained  alive  to  surrender 
and  accept  Assyrian  rule.  The  others  w^ere 
savagely  butchered,  their  heads  cut  off,  and 
their  blood  scattered  over  the  “ditches  and 
heights  of  the  mountains.”1  This  savagery, 
so  clearly  met  here  for  the  first  time,  blackens 
the  whole  record  of  Assyrian  history  to  the 
end.  It  was  usual  in  far  less  degree  among 
the  Babylonians,  so  that  the  ascendancy  of 
Assyria  over  Babylonia  is,  in  this  light,  the 
triumph  of  brute  force  over  civilization. 

Having  thus  overwhelmed  the  advance  guard 
of  the  Mushke,  Tiglathpileser  returns  to  re¬ 
establish,  by  conquest,  the  Assyrian  suprem¬ 
acy  over  the  southern  portions  of  the  land  of 
Kummukh.  This  country  was  also  quickly 
subdued  and  its  cities  wasted  with  fire,  per¬ 
haps  as  centers  of  possible  rebellion.  The 
fleeing  inhabitants  crossed  an  arm  of  the  Tigris 
toward  the  west  and  made  a  stand  in  the  city 
of  Sherishe,  which  they  fortified  for  defense. 
The  Assyrian  king  pursued  across  mountain 

1  Tiglathpileser  Prism  inscription,  i,  62-88.  The  phrase  quoted  is 
in  line  79.  Translation  in  Keilinschrift.  Bibl. ,  i,  p.  19. 


TIGLATHPILESER  I  AND  HTS  SONS  169 


and  river,  and  carried  by  assault  their  strong¬ 
hold,  butchering  the  fighting  men  as  before. 
The  men  of  Kummukh  had  some  forces  from 
the  land  of  Qurkhe1  as  allies,  but  these  profited 
little,  and  the  united  forces  were  overwhelmed. 
Again  the  Tigris  was  crossed  and  the  strong¬ 
hold  of  Urratinash  laid  waste.  Rightly  appre¬ 
ciating  the  terrible  danger  that  threatened 
them,  the  inhabitants  gathered  together  their 
possessions,  together  with  their  gods,  and  fled 
“like  birds”2  into  the  mountain  fastnesses  that 
surrounded  them.  Their  king,  realizing  the 
hopelessness  of  his  state,  came  forth  to  meet 
his  conqueror  and  to  seek  some  mercy  at  his 
hand.  Tiglathpileser  took  the  members  of 
his  family  as  hostages,  and  received  a  rich 
gift  of  bronze  plates,  copper  bowls,  and  trays, 
and  a  hundred  and  twenty  slaves,  with  oxen 
and  sheep.  Strangely  enough,  he  spared  his 
life,  adding,  complacently,  to  the  record  the 
words:  “I  had  compassion  on  him,  (and) 
granted  his  life,”  which  hereafter  was  to  be 
lived  under  Assyrian  suzerainty.  By  these 
movements  the  “broad  land  of  Kummukh” 
was  conquered,  and  the  Assyrian  ruled  at 
least  as  far  as,  if  not  beyond,  Mount  Masius. 
Great  achievements,  these,  for  the  first  year 
of  a  reign,  and  the  next  year  was  equally  suc- 


1  “A  land  eastward  of  Diarbekir,  along  the  northern  bank  of  the 
Tigris,”  so  Sayce,  Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series,  vol.  i,  p.  96,  note  3. 

2  The  figure  belongs  to  the  annals  of  Tiglathpileser. 


170  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


cessful.  It  began  with  an  invasion  of  the  land 
of  Shubari,  which  had  been  conquered  before 
by  Adad-nirari  I,  and  had  again  rebelled, 
thence  the  king  marched  into  the  countries 
of  Alzi  and  Purukhuzzi,  of  which  we  heard 
in  his  first  campaign,  in  order  to  lay  upon 
them  anew  the  old  annual  tribute  so  long  un¬ 
paid  to  Assyria.  The  cities  of  Shubari  surren¬ 
dered  without  battle  on  the  appearance  of 
Tiglathpileser,  and  the  district  north  of  Mount 
Masius  was  all  a  tribute-paying  land.  On 
the  return  from  this  campaign  the  land  of 
Kummukh  is  again  devastated.  The  exaggera¬ 
tion  of  the  king’s  annals  appears  strongly 
here,  for  if,  in  the  campaign  of  the  first  year, 
Kummukh  had  been  so  thoroughly  wasted  as 
the  king’s  words  declare,  there  would  certainly 
have  been  little  left  to  destroy  in  the  next 
year.  This  time  there  is  added  at  the  con¬ 
clusion  one  sentence  which  did  not  appear 
before.  “The  land  of  Kummukh,  in  its  whole 
extent,  I  subjugated  and  added  to  the  terri¬ 
tory  of  my  land.”1  Well  may  such  a  con¬ 
queror  continue  in  the  words  which  imme¬ 
diately  follow:  “Tiglathpileser,  the  powerful 
king,  overwhelmer  of  the  disobedient,  he  who 
overcomes  the  opposition  of  the  wicked.”2 
The  control  of  the  great  Mesopotamian  valley 
in  its  northern  portion  between  the  Tigris 


1  Tiglathpileser,  col.  iii,  lines  34-35. 

*  Ibid.,  lines  36-38. 


TIGLATHPILESER  I  AND  HIS  SONS  171 

and  the  Euphrates  is  safely  lodged  in  Assyrian 
hands. 

The  third  year  of  the  reign  of  Tiglathpileser 
contained  no  less  than  three  campaigns.  The 
first,  against  Kharia1  and  Qurkhi,  we  cannot 
follow  in  its  geographical  details,  and  are 
therefore  unable  fully  to  realize  its  meaning 
and  importance.  It  was  a  mountain  cam¬ 
paign,  full  of  toilsome  ascents,  and  carried  on 
with  the  usual  savage  accompaniments.  In 
quite  a  different  direction  lay  the  course  of 
the  second  campaign  of  this  year.  Instead 
of  the  north,  it  was  the  south  that  now  claimed 
attention.  The  king  crosses  the  Lower  Zab 
River,  which  discharges  its  waters  into  the 
Tigris  not  far  south  of  the  ancient  capital, 
Asshur,  and  conquers  an  inaccessible  region 
amid  the  mountains  of  its  upper  courses.  A 
third  campaign  again  carries  him  to  the  north 
against  Sugi,  in  Qurkhi,  and  results  also  in 
a  victory,  from  which  no  less  then  twenty- 
five  gods  were  brought  back  to  Assyria  in 
triumphal  subjection  to  Ann,  Adad,  and  Ishtar. 

The  great  undertaking  of  the  fourth  year 
of  the  king’s  reign  was  a  campaign  into  the 
lands  of  the  Nairi.2  By  this  the  annals  of 
Tiglathpileser  clearly  mean  the  lands  about 

1  Tiele  ( Geschichte ,  p.  159,  Anm.  2)  has  joined  Kharia  with  LullumS, 
but  on  insufficient  grounds.  Streck  ( Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie,  xvi, 
ICO,  161 )  would  locate  it  in  the  mountains  of  Bohtan,  east  of  Kirkhu, 
and  this  seems  to  fit  the  general  situation  well. 

2  See  the  admirable  collection  of  references  to  this  territory  in  Streck, 


172  HISTORY  OP  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


the  sources  of  the  Tigris  and  Euphrates,  lying 
north,  west,  and  south  of  Lake  Van.  In  this 
territory  there  was  as  yet  no  Chaldian  kingdom, 
but  no  less  than  twenty-three  native  kings 
or  princes  united  their  forces  to  oppose  the 
Assyrian.  There  was  more  mountain  climbing 
to  reach  them,  and  then  they  were  severely 
punished.  The  kings  were  taken  alive,  and 
after  swearing  oaths  of  fealty  to  the  gods  of 
Assyria  were  liberated.  Chariots  and  troops 
of  horses,  with  much  treasure  of  every  kind, 
were  taken,  and  a  yearly  tribute  of  twelve 
hundred  horses  and  two  thousand  oxen  was 
put  upon  the  inhabitants,  who  were  not  removed 
from  their  land.* 1  One  only  of  these  twenty- 
three  kings — Sieni,  the  king  of  Dayaeni2 — 
refusing  to  surrender  as  the  others,  resisted 
to  the  last.  He  was  therefore  carried  in  chains 
to  Assyria,  where  he  probably  saw  reasons 
for  submission,  for  he  was  suffered  to  depart 
alive.  This  episode  in  the  king’s  conquests 
is  concluded  with  the  claim  that  the  whole 
of  the  lands  of  Nairi  were  subdued,  but  later 
history  shows  clearly  that  further  conquest 
was  necessary.  It  was  a  great  move  for- 

M.,  Das  Gebiet  der  heutigen  Landschaft  Armenien ,  Kurdistan  und  West- 
persien  nach  den  babylonisch-assyrischen  Keilinschriften,  in  Zeitschrift 
fiir  Assyriologie,  xiii,  pp.  57,  If. 

1  Tiglathpileser,  iv,  43;  v,  21. 

2  Dayaeni,  known  in  the  Chaldian  inscriptions  as  the  kingdom  “of 
the  son  of  Diaus,”  is  located  along  the  Murad-chai  near  Melasgerd. 
See  Sayce,  “Cuneiform  Inscriptions  of  Van,”  Journal  of  the  Royal 
Asiatic  Society,  xiv,  p.  399;  Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series,  i,  p.  106, 
footnote  6. 


TIGLATHPILESER  I  AND  HIS  SONS  173 


ward  in  Assyria’s  growth  into  a  world  power 
to  have  accomplished  this  much.  As  a  part 
of  the  same  campaign  tribute  was  collected 
from  the  territory  about  Milid,  and  another 
year  of  activity  was  ended. 

By  comparison  with  the  previous  four  years 
the  fifth  seems  a  year  of  less  result.  Aramaean 
peoples  inhabiting  the  Syrian  wastes,  west  of 
the  upper  waters  of  the  Euphrates  and  south 
of  the  city  of  Carchemish,  had  crossed  the 
river  into  Mesopotamia.  Tiglathpileser  ex¬ 
pelled  them,  and  so  again  strengthened  Assyrian 
supremacy  in  northern  Mesopotamia  as  far  as 
Carchemish.  Following  up  his  easily  won 
victory,  the  king  crossed  the  Euphrates  in 
pursuit  and  laid  waste  six  Aramaean  cities  at 
the  foot  of  Mount  Bishri. 

The  campaign  of  the  next  year  was  di¬ 
rected  against  the  land  of  Musri,1  which  had 
already  felt  the  arm  of  Assyria  in  the  reign 
of  Shalmaneser  I.  The  people  of  Musri  were 
aided  by  allies  from  the  land  of  Qumani,2 
and  both  lands  were  subjugated  and  a  yearly 
tribute  put  upon  them,  after  they  had  suf¬ 
fered  all  the  horrors  of  the  savage  Assyrian 
method  of  warfare.  In  the  language  of  the 
annals,  their  heads  were  cut  off  “like  sheep.” 

1  This  land  lay  in  the  northwest,  beyond  the  Euphrates,  and  extended 
southward  from  about  Malatiyeh  toward  the  Mediterranean.  Its  con¬ 
quest  introduced  Tiglathpileser  to  the  plains  of  Syria. 

2  Qumani  is  the  district  Comana  in  Cataonia  (Delattre,  L’Asie  occiden¬ 
tals  dans  les  Inscriptions  Assyriennes,  pp.  65,  66). 


174  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


The  king  thus  records  the  results  of  his 
five  years  of  campaigns:  “In  all,  forty-two 
countries  and  their  kings  from  beyond  the 
Lower  Zab  (and)  the  border  of  the  distant 
mountains  to  beyond  the  Euphrates,  to  the 
land  of  the  Hittites  and  the  Upper  Sea1  of 
the  setting  sun,  from  the  beginning  of  my 
sovereignty  until  my  fifth  year  my  hand  has 
conquered.  Of  one  mind  I  made  them  all; 
their  hostages  I  took;  tribute  and  taxes  I 
imposed  upon  them.”  With  this  notice  in  the 
annals  of  Tiglathpileser  ends  all  account  of 
his  campaigns.  No  other  word  concerning 
any  further  raids  or  ravages  is  spoken.  Were 
it  not  for  the  Synchronistic  History  we  should 
know  nothing  more  of  his  prowess.  The  in¬ 
formation  which  thus  comes  to  us  is  not  so 
full  as  are  the  notes  which  we  have  already 
passed  in  review,  but  it  supplies  what  was 
needful  to  round  out  the  circle  of  his  march¬ 
ing  and  conquering.  It  was  improbable  that 
a  king  who  had  conquered  north,  west,  and 
east  should  not  also  find  cause  for  attacking 
the  coveted  land  of  Babylonia.  From  the 
Synchronistic  History2  we  learn  that  he  twice 
invaded  the  territory  of  Marduk-nadin-akhi. 
In  the  first  conflict  he  lost,  and  Marduk- 

1  The  Gulf  of  Issus — a  part  of  the  Mediterranean.  This  was  one  of 
the  early  geographical  puzzles  in  the  history  of  Assyriology.  It  has 
been  identified  with  the  Black  Sea  (Eduard  Meyer,  Tiele),  with  Lake 
Van  (Schrader,  Sayce)  and  with  the  Caspian  (M6nant). 

2  Col.  ii,  lines  14-24. 


TIGLATHPILESER  I  AND  HIS  SONS  175 


nadin-akhi  even  entered  Assyria,  and  carried 
away  to  Babylonia  the  gods  Adad  and  Shala, 
which  reposed  there  until  Sennacherib  restored 
them  four  hundred  years  later.1  In  the  next 
campaign  success  once  more  came  to  the 
Assyrians,  for  Tiglathpileser  invaded  Babylonian 
territory  and  captured  Dur-Kurigalzu,  Sippar 
of  Shamash,  Sippar  of  Anunit,  Babylon  and  Opis, 
and  is  even  said  to  have  dismantled  their  fortifi¬ 
cations.2 

So  ends  the  story  of  the  wars  of  Tiglath¬ 
pileser  I.  He  had  not  only  restored  the  king¬ 
dom  of  Assyria  to  the  position  which  it  held 
in  the  days  of  Shalmaneser  and  Tukulti-Ninib; 
he  had  made  it  still  more  great.  Never  had 
so  many  peoples  paid  tribute  to  the  Assyrians, 
and  never  was  so  large  a  territory  actually 
ruled  from  the  Assyrian  capital. 

But  Tiglathpileser  was  no  less  great  in 
peace  than  in  war.  He  brought  back  the 
capital  of  Assyria  from  Calah  to  Asshur  and 
almost  rebuilt  the  city,  which  had  thus  again 
become  important.  The  temples  of  Ishtar, 
Adad,  and  Bel  were  rebuilt.  The  palaces 
which  had  fallen  into  ruin  during  the  absence 
of  the  court  were  again  restored  and  beautified. 
And  then  into  this  city  thus  renewed,  and 
into  this  land  enlarged  by  conquest,  the  king 
brought  the  wealth  of  the  world  as  he  had 

1  See  vol.  i,  p.  498. 

*  Synchronistic  col.  ii,  lines  14-24. 


176  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


gathered  it.  Goats,  fallow  deer,  and  wild 
sheep  were  herded  into  the  land.  Horses  in 
large  numbers  taken  from  conquered  lands  or 
received  in  yearly  tribute  were  added  to  the 
peaceful  service  of  agriculture.  But  not  even 
here  did  the  king  rest.  He  caused  trees  also 
to  be  brought  from  great  distances  and  planted 
in  the  land  he  loved.1  It  is  a  marvelous  story 
of  peaceful  achievement,  worthy  of  a  place  by 
the  side  of  his  overpowering  success  in  war. 

In  addition  to  the  serious  work  of  war  and 
peace  the  king  found  time  to  cultivate  the  wiles 
of  a  sportsman,  and  great  are  his  boasts  of  the 
birds  and  the  cattle  and  even  the  lions  which  he 
slew.  This  passion  for  sport  is  commemorated 
long  afterward  in  an  inscription  of  Ashurnazirpal, 
in  which  we  are  told  that  Tiglathpileser  sailed 
in  ships  of  Arvacl  upon  the  Mediterranean.2  It 
follows  from  this  that  after  the  six  campaigns, 
enumerated  above,  the  king  must  have  made 
another  which  carried  him  out  to  the  Phoenician 
coast,  where  his  successors  were  later  to  fight 
great  battles  and  win  great  triumphs. 

Of  the  conclusion  of  the  reign  of  Tiglathpileser 
we  know  nothing.  He  probably  died  in  peace, 
for  he  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Ashur-bel-kala, 
and  the  latter  was  followed  after  a  short  reign 
by  another  son  of  Tiglathpileser,  Shamshi-Adad 

1  Tiglathpileser  VII,  1-35  (thereby  imitating  Thutmosis  III). 

2 1  R.  28,  2.  Comp,  translation  by  Peiser,  in  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  i, 
124.  While  sailing  the  king  slew  a  nakhiru.  This  was  the  white  or  sper¬ 
maceti  whale.  See  the  learned  article  by  Paul  Haupt. 


TIGLATHPILESER  I  AND  HIS  SONS  177 


IV.  So  easy  and  unbroken  a  succession  makes 
it  a  fair  presumption  that  the  times  were  peace¬ 
ful.  The  sons  were  not  able  to  bear  the  burden 
which  came  to  them,  so  that  there  is  speedily  a 
falling  off  in  the  power  and  dignity  of  the  king¬ 
dom.  When  we  look  back  on  the  reign  of  Tig- 
lathpileser  and  ask  what  of  permanent  value 
for  Assyria  was  achieved  by  all  his  wars,  the 
answer  is  disappointing.  He  might  boast  that 
he  had  conquered  from  east  to  west,  from  the 
Lower  Zab  to  the  Mediterranean,  and  from  the 
south  to  the  north,  from  Babylonia  to  Lake 
Van,  but  what  were  these  conquests,  for  the 
most  part,  but  raids  of  intimidation  and  of 
plunder?  He  did  not  really  extend  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  Assyria  to  such  limits,  even  though  in 
Kummukh  he  actually  appointed  Assyrian  gov¬ 
ernors.  Over  this  great  territory,  however,  he 
made  the  name  of  Assyria  feared,  so  that  the 
lesser  peoples  surrendered  at  times  without  a 
blow  for  freedom,  while  the  greater  peoples 
dared  not  think  of  invading  Assyrian  territory. 
This  insurance  against  invasion  was  the  great 
gain  which  he  brought  to  his  country.  By  carry¬ 
ing  savage  war  to  other  nations  he  secured  for 
his  own  a  peace  which  gave  opportunity  for 
progress  in  the  arts.  These  great  temples  and 
palaces  required  time  for  their  erection  and  time 
for  the  training  of  men  who  were  skilled  in  the 
making  of  bricks  and  the  working  of  wood.  The 
very  inscription  from  which  we  have  learned  the 


178  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


facts  of  his  reign,  a  beautiful  clay  prism  with 
eight  hundred  and  nine  lines  of  writing,  bears 
impressive  witness  to  a  high  state  of  civilization 
and  an  era  of  peace. 

Of  the  reigns  of  the  two  sons  we  know  almost 
nothing.  Ashur-bel-kala  maintained  terms  of 
peace  with  Marduk-shapik-zer-mati,  king  of 
Babylonia,  who  thereby  seemed  to  be  considered 
an  independent  monarch  and  not  subject  to  the 
Assyrians,  as  his  predecessor  had  been.  In  this 
reign  the  capital  appears  to  have  been  trans¬ 
ferred  to  Nineveh,1  and  a  word  in  the  only 
inscription  of  the  king  which  has  come  down  to 
us  hints  at  the  king’s  control  in  the  west2. 
After  a  short  reign  Ashur-bel-kala  was  suc¬ 
ceeded  by  his  brother,  Shashi-Adad  IV,  whose 
only  work  known  to  us  was  the  rebuilding  of  the 
temple  of  Ishtar  in  Nineveh — another  proof  that 
the  capital  was  now  located  at  this  city  and  not 
at  Asshur. 

After  this  reign  there  is  another  long  period  of 
silence  in  Assyrian  history,  of  which  we  have  no 
native  monumental  witnesses;  a  period  of  im¬ 
mense  importance  in  the  history  of  mankind,  for 
it  was  a  time  not  only  of  silence  but  of  actual 
decay  in  the  Assyrian  commonwealth.  As  the 
fortunes  of  Assyria  were  at  so  low  an  ebb,  the 

1  This  follows  from  an  inscription  of  Ashur-bel-kala  which  was  found 
at  Kuyunjik — that  is,  Nineveh — which  comes  from  a  palace  of  the  king. 
It  is  published  I  R.  6,  No.  VI,  and  republished  more  correctly,  Journal 
of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society ,  April,  1892,  and  again  translated  by  S.  A. 
Strong,"1  Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series,  vi,  pp.  76-79. 

!  So  Professor  Sayce,  ibid.,  p.  78,  footnote. 


TIGLATHPILESER  I  AND  HIS  SONS  179 


time  was  favorable  for  the  growth  and  develop¬ 
ment  of  peoples  elsewhere  who  were  for  a  time 
free  from  the  threatening  of  Assyrian  arms. 
When  once  more  we  come  upon  a  period  of 
historical  writing  and  of  great  deeds  in  Assyria 
we  shall  find  the  Assyrian  conquerors  confronting 
a  changed  condition  of  affairs  in  the  world.  To 
the  growth  of  new  conditions  elsewhere  we  must 
now  address  our  thought  for  a  better  under¬ 
standing  of  Assyrian  movements  after  the  silent 
period. 


f 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  INCREASE  OF  ASSYRIAN  POWER  OVER 

BABYLONIA 

After  the  dynasty  of  Isin  had  ceased  to  rule  in 
Babylonia,  brought  to  an  end  we  know  not  how, 
there  arose  a  dynasty  known  to  the  Babylonian 
historiographers  and  chronologists  as  the  dynasty 
of  the  Sea  Lands.  The  territory  known  as  the 
Sea  Lands  was  alluvial  land  at  the  estuaries  of 
the  Tigris  and  the  Euphrates  upon  the  Persian 
Gulf.  This  fertile  country,  already  beginning  to 
show  its  growing  power,  was  destined  at  a  later 
period  to  exercise  a  great  influence  upon  the  his¬ 
tory  of  Babylonia.  The  dynasty  of  the  Sea 
Lands  numbered  only  three  kings,  who  reigned 
together  but  twenty-one  years  and  five  months,1 
or,  as  the  Babylonian  Chronicle  has  it,  twenty- 
three  years.2  This  variation  in  the  time  given 
by  the  two  chief  Babylonian  authorities  is 
instructive  in  its  showing  that  the  Babylonians 
themselves  did  not  preserve  so  accurate  a 
memory  of  this  time  as  of  the  earlier  and  later 
periods. 

The  first  king  of  the  dynasty  was  Simbar- 
shipak  (about  1046-1028  B.  C.),  of  whose  reign 

1  King  List  A,  col.  iii. 

2  Chronicle  B,  1. 


180 


INCREASE  OF  ASSYRIAN  POWER 


181 


we  know  only  that  it  ended  disastrously,  for  he 
was  slain  and  buried  in  the  palace  of  Sargon.1 

The  next  king  was  Ea-mukin-zer  (about  1027 
B.  C.),  who  reigned  but  five  months  according  to 
the  King  List,  or  three  months  according  to  the 
Chronicle.  Of  his  reign,  also,  we  have  no  further 
knowledge.2 

The  last  king  was  Kasshu-nadin-akhe,  son  of 
Sippai,  who  reigned  but  three  years  (about  1027- 
1024  B.  C.)  (Chronicle,  six  years),  whose  works 
are  likewise  unknown  to  us,  and  only  the  melan¬ 
choly  memory  remained  that  there  was  distress 
and  famine  in  his  reign,  and  that  the  regular 
offerings  at  the  temple  of  Shamash  in  Sippar, 
which  had  been  partially  restored  by  the  first 
king  of  this  dynasty,  had  again  been  discon¬ 
tinued.3 

Immediately  after  this  dynasty  there  follows 
another  of  three  kings,  called  the  dynasty  of  the 
house  of  Bazi,  of  which  we  know  only  the  names 
of  the  rulers  and  the  somewhat  doubtful  number 
of  years  which  they  reigned.  These  kings  are: 

Eulmash-shakin-shum,  seventeen  years  (Chron¬ 
icle,  fifteen)  (about  1024-1007  B.  C.),  in  whose 
seventh  year  occurred  a  great  storm,  and  in  the 
eleventh  so  great  a  flood  that  the  waters  of  the 


1  Babylonian  Chronicle  V,  lines  2  and  3. 

2  Inscription  of  Nabu-apal-iddin,  col.  i.  See  translation  by  Peiser, 
Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  iii,  part  i,  p.  177. 

3  Such  is  the  record  found  on  the  Stone  Tablet  of  Nabu-aplu-iddina 
(British  Museum  91000-91004),  lines  1-28,  King,  Babylonian  Boundary 
Stones,  pp.  121,  122. 


182  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

river  came  within  the  wall  of  the  lower  mound, 
that  is  probably  into  the  city  of  Babylon. 

Ninib-kudur-usur,  three  years  (Chronicle,  two) 
(1007-1004  B.  C.). 

Silanim-shukamuna,  three  months  (about  1003 
B.  C.). 

After  this  dynasty  comes  another  with  only 
one  king,  named  Ae-aplu-usur.  He  is  called  an 
Elamite,  reigned  six  years,  and  was  buried  in  the 
palace  of  Sargon  (about  1003-997  B.  C.).  In 
his  seizing  of  the  throne  we  are  reminded  of  the 
former  Elamite  movements  under  Eri-Aku. 

With  these  three  dynasties  we  have  passed 
over  a  period  of  history  in  Babylonia  of  perhaps 
forty-six  years.  Our  lack  of  knowledge  of  the 
period  is  of  course  partly  due  to  absence  of 
original  documents,  but  it  is  also  probably  due 
to  the  fact  that  there  was  little  to  tell.  We  have 
lighted  upon  degenerate  days.  The  real  Baby¬ 
lonian  stock  had  exhausted  its  vigor,  and  was 
now  intermixed  with  Kassite  and  other  foreign 
blood — a  mixture  which  would  later  prove 
stronger  than  the  pure  blood  which  had  preceded 
it,  for  mixed  races  have  generally  been  superior 
to  those  of  pure  blood.  But  there  was  hardly 
time  yet  for  a  display  of  its  real  force.  Besides 
this  Babylonia  had  suffered  from  invasions  from 
Assyria,  from  Elam,  and  from  the  Sea  Lands,  at 
the  head  of  the  Persian  Gulf.  It  was  not  sur¬ 
prising  that  a  period  not  only  of  peace  but  of 
stagnation  had  come. 


INCREASE  OF  ASSYRIAN  POWER 


183 


The  most  noteworthy  fact  in  these  forty-six 
years  is  the  arising  from  the  far  south  of  the 
so-called  dynasty  of  the  Sea  Lands.  The  names 
of  these  three  kings  are  chiefly  Kassite,  and  that 
would  seem  to  imply  that  the  Kassites  had  also 
overrun  this  land  as  well  as  the  more  central 
parts  of  Babylonia.  However  that  may  be,  this 
is  the  country  which  is  also  called  the  land  of  the 
Kaldi,  or,  in  the  later  form,  the  land  of  Chaldea. 
This  is  the  period  of  the  growth  and  develpoment 
of  new  states  on  all  sides,  as  we  shall  see  in  the 
survey  to  follow,  and  it  is  the  first  appearance  of 
the  Chaldeans  in  Babylonian  history.  Their  sub¬ 
sequent  history  shows  that  they  were  Semites, 
though  perhaps,  as  above  stated,  of  somewhat 
mixed  blood.  It  is  not  known  when  they  first 
entered  the  land  by  the  sea,  from  which  they  had 
now  invaded  Babylonia.  It  has  been  suggested 
that  their  power  in  Babylonia  was  attained  not 
by  conquest,  but  by  a  slow  progress  of  emigra¬ 
tion.1  The  view  is  plausible,  perhaps  even  proba¬ 
ble,  for  they  seem  to  have  become  kings  in  a 
period  of  profound  peace,  but  there  is  no  sure 
evidence. 

In  following  the  line  of  Babylonian  kings  we 
have  now  reached  another  period  of  extreme 
difficulty.  The  native  Babylonian  King  Lists 
are  so  badly  broken  that  no  names  are  legible 
for  a  long  period,  and  but  very  few  of  the  nume¬ 
rals  which  give  their  years  of  reign.  It  is  possible 


1  Winckler,  Geschichte,  p.  113. 


184  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


however,  from  the  fragmentary  notices  of  Assy¬ 
rian  kings,  from  Synchronistic  History,  and  from 
certain  business  documents  to  recover  a  few  of 
the  names,  which  will  be  set  down  in  their 
approximate  order  as  the  story  progresses.  The 
next  of  the  kings  of  Babylonia  seems  to  have 
been  Nabu-mukin-apli,1  who  reigned  apparently 
thirty-six  years  (about  996-960  B.  C.),  and  whose 
portrait,  accompanied  by  his  titles  as  king  of 
Kishshati  and  king  of  Babylonia,  is  given  on  a 
curious  boundary  stone.  This  is  all  that  is 
known  of  him  or  his  reign. 

While  we  have  been  laboriously  threading  our 
way  through  the  weary  mazes  of  this  obscure 
succession  of  dynasties  in  Babylonia  we  have 
left  aside  a  period  of  silence  in  Assyria  after  the 
reign  of  Tiglathpileser  I  and  his  two  sons.  We 
have  now  seen  that  during  this  period  there  was 
no  display  of  power  and  energy  in  Babylonia, 
but  the  people  of  Chaldea,  using  perhaps  this 
very  opportunity,  had  been  able  to  establish 

1  The  whole  question  of  this  king’s  personality  and  date  is  exceedingly 
obscure.  If  he  is  the  first  king  of  the  eighth  dynasty,  he  must  have 
reigned  for  thirty-six  years,  for  that  numeral  appears  clearly  in 
Knudtzon’s  copy  in  place  of  the  thirteen  years  previously  given.  (Com¬ 
pare  Knudtzon,  Assyrische  Gebete  an  den  Sonnengott,  i,  60,  with  Schrader 
in  Sitzungsberichte  der  Berl.  Ak.  der  TFfss.,  1887,  pp.  579-607,  947-951.) 
Of  his  name  there  is  no  doubt,  for  he  is  mentioned  on  the  curious  boun¬ 
dary  stone  (British  Museum,  No.  90835),  published  by  Belser,  Beitrage 
zur  Assyriologie,  ii,  171,  ff.  See  King,  Babylonian  Boundary  Stones, 
p.  51,  ff.  As  Peiser  has  correctly  pointed  out  in  his  translation  ( Keil - 
inschriftliche  Bibliothek,  iv,  82,  ff.),  the  stone  has  on  it  writing  of  differ¬ 
ent  dates,  and  this,  of  course,  adds  to  the  difficulty.  Peiser’s  diffi¬ 
culty  about  the  number  of  years  of  reign  assigned  to  Nabu-mukin- 
apli  is  removed  if  the  incorrect  13  of  the  older  publications  of  the  King 
List  be  corrected  into  36,  in  accordance  with  Knudtzon’s  excellent  copy. 


INCREASE  OE  ASSYRIAN  POWER 


185 


themselves  well  in  their  own  land,  and  even  to 
attain  power  in  Babylonia. 

In  the  west  there  were  movements  of  still 
greater  importance  among  the  Semitic  peoples. 
Just  as  the  decay  of  Babylonian  power  gave 
opportunity  to  the  Chaldeans,  so  the  decay  of 
Assyrian  power  and  the  consequent  absence  of 
its  threats  against  the  west  gave  great  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  the  peoples  of  Syria  and  Palestine.  As 
the  Assyrian  power  must  soon  meet  these  new 
foes,  as  well  as  old  foes  in  new  locations,  we  must 
survey  this  field  of  the  west  before  we  proceed 
further  with  the  story  of  Assyria. 

Several  times  before  in  this  history  we  have 
met  with  a  people  known  as  the  Aramaeans .  Like 
the  Assyrians  and  Babylonians,  they  were  a 
Semitic  people  whose  original  homeland  was 
Arabia,  and  probably  northern  Arabia.  Whether 
Aramaeans  began  to  leave  Arabia  before  or  after 
the  Babylonians  will  probably  never  be  known 
with  certainty.  As  the  Mesopotamian  valley 
was  so  much  more  desirable  a  place  of  dwelling 
than  the  lands  later  occupied  by  the  Aramaeans, 
it  seems  reasonable  to  suppose  that  this  valley 
was  already  occupied  by  the  Babylonians  when 
the  Aramaeans  came  out  of  Arabia  and  moved 
northward.  They  left  settlements  along  the 
edges  of  the  Babylonian  kingdom,  some  of  which 
were  readily  absorbed,  while  others  remained  to 
vex  their  stronger  neighbors  for  centuries.  In 
their  migrations  toward  the  north  they  seemed 


186  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


to  follow  very  nearly  the  course  of  the  Euphrates, 
though  bodies  of  them  crossed  over  toward  the 
Tigris  and  became,  as  we  have  seen,  thorny 
neighbors  of  the  Assyrians  during  the  founding 
of  the  Assyrian  kingdom.  At  the  period  which 
we  have  now  reached,  their  strongest  settlements 
were  along  the  northern  Euphrates,  in  the  neigh¬ 
borhood  of  the  river  Sajur.  Pitru  (the  biblical 
Pethor1)  and  Mutkinu,  which  had  been  filled 
with  Assyrian  colonists  by  Tiglathpileser,  were 
now  in  the  hands  of  the  Aramaeans.  But  they 
had  also  silently  possessed  themselves  of  terri¬ 
tory  farther  north  along  the  Euphrates,  even  as 
far  as  Amid,  which  Tiglathpileser  had  con¬ 
quered,  but  which  had  to  be  reconquered,  and 
from  the  Aramaeans,  in  a  short  time.  But  the 
greatest  achievement  of  the  Aramaeans  was  not 
in  the  upper  Mesopotamian  valley.  They  were 
in  force  in  this  valley  when  the  Hittite  empire 
fell  to  pieces,  and  to  them  came  the  best  of  what 
it  possessed.  Carchemish,  at  the  fords  of  the 
Euphrates,  had  been  passed  by,  and  moving 
westward,  they  had  seized  Aleppo  and  Hamath 
and  then,  most  glorious  and  powerful  of  all, 
Damascus  fell  into  their  hands.  Here  they 
founded  their  greatest  kingdom,  and  centuries 
must  elapse  before  the  Assyrians  would  be  able 
to  break  down  this  formidable  barrier  to  their 
western  progress.  But  these  facts  have  another 
significance  besides  the  political.  The  Aramaeans 


1  Num.  xxii,  5;  Deut.  xxiii,  4. 


INCREASE  OF  ASSYRIAN  POWER 


187 


were  essentially  traders.  The  territory  which 
they  now  possessed  was  the  key  to  the  trade 
between  the  east  and  the  west.  The  products  of 
Assyria  and  of  Babylonia  could  not  cross  into 
Syria  and  thence  in  ships  over  the  Mediter¬ 
ranean  westward  without  passing  through  this 
Aramaean  territory,  and  so  paying  tribute.  The 
Aramaeans  had  become  the  land  traders,  as  the 
Phoenicians  were  the  sea  traders.  Now,  the 
Assyrians  were  also  a  commercial  people,  shrewd, 
eager,  and  persevering.  It  could  not  be  long 
before  the  king  of  Assyria  would  be  pressed  by 
the  commercial  life  of  Nineveh  to  undertake 
wars  for  the  winning  back  from  the  Aramaeans 
of  this  territory  so  valuable  in  itself,  and  so 
important  for  the  development  of  Assyrian  com¬ 
merce.  However  the  Assyrians,  who  were  never 
a  maritime  people,  might  endure  the  submission 
of  their  commercial  ambition  to  the  Phoenicians 
on  the  sea,  it  was  not  likely  that  they  would 
yield  up  the  highways  of  the  land  to  a  people 
less  numerous  and  less  strong  than  themselves. 
In  the  period  of  decay  that  followed  the  reign 
of  Tiglathpileser  this  new  power  had  risen  up 
to  bar  their  progress.  We  shall  see  shortly  how 
the  difficulty  was  met. 

During  the  same  period  another  power,  not  so 
great,  and  yet  destined  to  influence  strongly  the 
later  history  of  Assyria  and  soon  to  excite 
Assyrian  cupidity,  had  been  slowly  developing 
in  the  land  of  Palestine  south  of  the  Aramaean 


188  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


strongholds.  When  the  Hebrews  crossed  over 
the  Jordan  into  Palestine  they  found  a  number 
of  disorganized  tribes  lately  freed  from  Egyptian 
rule  and  not  yet  organized  into  a  confederation 
sufficiently  strong  to  resist  the  fresh  blood  which 
came  on  them  suddenly  from  out  the  desert.1 
The  Hebrews  in  their  desert  sojourn  had  worn 
off  the  feeling  of  a  subject  population,  and  from 
the  desert  air  had  taken  in  at  every  breath  the 
freedom  which  to  this  very  day  inspires  the 
desert  Arab.  It  was  a  resistless  force  which 
Joshua  led  in  the  desultory  campaigns  beyond 
the  Jordan.  The  period  of  the  Judges  was  a 
rude  and  barbaric  age,  but  it  was  an  age  in 
which  Israel  developed  some  idea  of  national  life 
and  some  power  of  self-government.  If  the  con¬ 
quests  of  Tiglathpileser  had  continued  many 
years  longer,  he  would  surely  have  been  led  to 
invade  Palestine,  and  the  Hebrews,  without  a 
fixed  central  government,  without  a  kingly 
leader,  without  a  standing  army,  would  have 
fallen  an  easy  prey  to  his  disciplined  and  vic¬ 
torious  troops.  But  the  period  of  Assyrian 
weakness  which  followed  his  reign  gave  the 
needed  breathing  spell  in  the  west,  and  the  king¬ 
dom  of  Saul  and  David  was  established.  Herein 
was  established  a  new  center  of  influence  ready 
to  oppose  the  ambition  of  Assyrian  kings  and  the 
commercial  cupidity  of  Assyrian  traders. 

1  See  a  fresh  and  vigorous  statement  of  the  Canaanite  situation  in 
Guthe,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  §11,  pp.  33-38.  In  the  third  edition, 
pp.  44-52. 


INCREASE  OE  ASSYRIAN  POWER 


189 


The  political  aspect  of  western  Asia  had 
changed  considerably  in  the  period  1050-950 
B.  C.  During  this  century  we  do  not  know  any¬ 
thing  of  the  life  of  the  Assyrian  people.  The 
names  of  the  kings  Ashurnazirpal  II  (about 
1050  B.  C.)  and  his  son  Shalmaneser  II  belong 
in  this  period,  but  we  know  nothing  of  them,  nor 
yet  of  a  number  of  their  successors  save  only 
their  names,  and  in  some  cases  their  relationship. 
A  little  later  came  Ashur-rabi  III,  though  the 
exact  order  is  somewhat  doubtful.  He  has  left 
us  no  accounts  of  his  wars  or  of  his  works.  From 
the  allusions  of  the  later  Assyrian  king  Shal¬ 
maneser  hi,  we  learn  that  it  was  in  his  reign 
that  the  Aramaeans  seized  Pitru  (Pethor)  and 
Mutkinu,1  so  that  his  reign  is  another  evidence 
of  the  period  of  weakness  and  decay  in  Assyria. 
But  he  seems,  on  the  other  hand,  to  have  invaded 
the  far  west,  for  on  the  Phoenician  coast  he  carved 
his  portrait  in  relief  upon  the  rocks,2  probably  in 
the  rocky  gorge  of  the  Nahr-el-Kelb,  north  of 
Beirut,  a  place  much  used  for  the  same  purpose 
by  later  Assyrian  conquerors. 

At  about  950  B.  C.  Tiglathpileser  III  began  to 
reign  in  Assyria,  and  from  his  time  on  to  the  end 
of  the  Assyrian  empire  we  possess  an  unbroken 
list  of  the  names  of  the  kings.  He  is  called  king 

1  Shalmaneser,  Monolith ,  ii,  37.  On  this  text  compare  especially 
Winckler,  Untersuchungen,  pp.  22,  23,  footnote  0,  and  Geschichte,  p.  332, 
note  38  (to  page  181).  Compare  Sina  Schilfer,  Die  Aramaer ,  p.  13. 

2  Shalmaneser,  Balawat,  ii,  3.  Compare  also  Winckler,  Unter¬ 
suchungen,  pp.  22,  23,  footnote  6. 


190  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


of  Kishshati  and  king  of  Asshur,1 2  and  with  his 
name  and  his  titles  our  knowledge  begins  and 
ends.  He  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Ashur-dan 
IP  (about  930  B.  C.),  and  he  again  by  his  son, 
Adad-nirari  III  (911-889  B.  C.),  in  whose  reign 
the  old  struggles  between  Assyria  and  Babylonia 
began  again.  Babylonia  was  now  ruled  by 
Shamash-mudammik,  and  these  two  monarchs 
met  in  battle  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Yalman  and 
the  Babylonian  was  utterly  overthrown.  He 
was  slain  by  Nabu-shum-ishkun,  who  succeeded 
him  and  renewed  the  struggle  with  the  Assyrians, 
but  likewise  suffered  defeat  at  the  hands  of 
Adad-nirari  III,  and  was  compelled  to  yield 
some  cities  to  the  Assyrians,  after  which  a 
treaty  of  peace  was  made  between  the  two 
nations.  Besides  these  notices  of  the  relations 
between  the  two  kingdoms  our  only  record  of 
the  times  are  inscriptions  of  Adad-nirari  III, 
in  which  he  describes  his  rebuilding  of  the  quay 
on  the  Tigris  banks  at  Asshur,  and  the  recon¬ 
struction  of  the  city  moat  and  canal,  and  two 
campaigns  of  conquest  against  Qumani,  where 
Tiglathpileser  I  had  met  victory.  So  also  did 
he  and  brought  back  heavy  booty  to  Assyria.3 
His  son,  Tukulti-Ninib  II  (889-884  B.  C.), 
introduces  us  to  the  threshold  of  a  new  period 

1  No  inscription  of  Tiglathpileser  III  has  been  preserved,  and  we 
owe  these  facts  to  the  inscription  of  Adad-ninari  II  ( Zeitschrift  fur 
Assyriologie,  ii,  p.  311;  Keilinschrift.  Bill.,  i,  pp.  48,  49). 

2  See  the  same  inscription  of  Adad-nirari  II. 

3  See  two  inscriptions  by  him  in  Andrae,  Featungswerke  von  Assur, 
pp.  167,  168. 


INCREASE  OE  ASSYRIAN  POWER 


191 


of  Assyrian  conquest.  He  began  again  the  cam¬ 
paigns  in  the  north,  which  had  rested  since  the 
days  of  Tiglathpileser  I,  over  whose  course,  in 
part,  he  marched,  piercing  the  highlands  even 
to  the  confines  of  Urartu  (Armenia)  and  extend¬ 
ing  his  ravages  from  Lake  Urumiyeh  on  the  east 
to  the  land  of  Kummukh  on  the'west.  At  Supnat 
(Sebeneh-Su)  he  caused  his  relief  portrait  to  be 
set  up  alongside  of  that  of  Tiglathpileser,  whose 
exploits  he  had  been  emulating.1 

In  his  reign  Assyria  gives  plain  indication  that 
the  period  of  decay  and  of  weakness  was  past. 
The  Babylonians  had  been  partially  humbled, 
and  were  at  least  not  threatening.  The  Assyrians 
were  therefore  free  to  begin  again  to  assert  the 
right  to  tribute  in  the  north  and  northwest.  In 
the  next  reign  the  issue  is  joined,  and  a  new 
period  of  Assyrian  progress  begins. 

He  has  left  us  a  splendidly  inscribed  tablet  in 
which  he  gives  a  brief  resume  of  his  first  five 
campaigns,  and  then  a  most  elaborate  account 
of  his  sixth  and  last  campaign,  which  occurred 
in  the  year  885  B.  C.2  In  this  he  set  out  on  the 
twenty-sixth  day  of  the  month  of  Nisan,  from 
Asshur  and  reaching  the  river  Tartar,  which 
rises  in  the  Sin  jar  mountains  and  flows  southward 

1  Schrader,  Die  Keilinschriften  am  Eingange  der  Quellgrotte  des  Se¬ 
beneh-Su  (1885).  Compare  also  Scheil  et  Gautier,  Annales  de  Tukulti- 
Ninip  II,  Paris,  1909,  pp.  3,  4. 

2  The  eponym  of  this  year  according  to  the  Assyrian  Eponym  List 
was  lari  or  Yari  (Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels,  p.  219),  but  Tukulti- 
Ninib’s  inscription  gives  the  Eponym  as  Na’di-ilu.  Apparently,  there¬ 
fore,  the  Eponym  List  was  not  absolutely  fixed. 


192  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


nearly  parallel  with  the  Euphrates,  he  followed 
its  course  for  four  days,  killing  nine  buffaloes  on 
his  progress  by  the  river  side.  When  he  reached 
the  point  where  the  river  was  lost  in  the  desert, 
he  turned  eastward  and  came  to  the  Tigris 
where  he  laid  waste  the  villages  of  the  Utu’ate. 
Thence  traversing  an  unknown  road  he  kept  on 
in  Babylonia  to  Dur-Kurigalzu,  and  to  Sippar 
of  Shamash,  where  he  turned  northward  along 
the  Euphrates.  Here  his  account  sounds  quite 
like  Xenophon’s  Anabasis  as  he  trudges  along, 
mentioning  the  cities  on  the  river  passing  from 
the  Euphrates  to  the  Chabur  and  far  away  in  the 
north  to  Nisibis,  and  thence  back  again  to 
Asshur,  where  he  carried  on  extensive  works  of 
building  and  restoration.  It  was  indeed  a  royal 
progress  beyond  compare  in  former  times,  and 
described  with  remarkable  liveliness  though  in 
so  orderly  and  annalistic  fashion.1 

1  The  whole  text  is  transliterated  and  translated  by  Scheil,  op.  cit., 
pp.  8-29. 


Itlljgl 


*m*&**m»**. 


:;  v*|**i*|lf 

?f^^W!SP> 


II — 193 


-^deS  \o  QiriA  jiibbi-Ixiqi-iidiiK  Id  idfcldi  onot8 
bog  edvji  qot  otb  •) A  (.0  .£1  M8*d88  tuodji)  xioi 
,oiii*nfa  mi  iiiiiliw  boJBoa  as  b9in9a9*iq9'i  ai  d&mmdH 
9‘i.B  xlpixfw  9ioiod  Jodmya  aixl  at  xfolxfw  to  txro'it  rxi 
tgabl  exld  gixboiibxioo  taqbq  b  Jaiil  orb  ?89*mgj t  oeniit 
.bawoUol  ax  bxiB  ,bnoooa  abnxda  oxfw  •  < a tbbi- [xkjb--j ? <\&A 
.gni/I  9ili  iol  aobooistal  oxfw  '\A**  aaohbog  oil)  vd 
ni  bxtuol  a  by/  ,89/fbni  T  Vd  o  r  [  1  dbda  b;lrtiJB9<i  sirf  i 
-8b5I  bsimndK  rd  Y&qqid  Kb  tod  xid  otb  Wfnxfhi:,  •  fis 
••  ■!='  -  .mifeaffiM  xfaiJhH  orb  oi  Y/on  4  bffbxhtla 

. 

■1}H9  ^ntSAcM  ,W  i'/gdoH  :vd  nortouboiint  axs  H$rn 
the  ncr«?  whicii  ly:  :  —  iiilrtiii) 

iatkpdo^er  I  v 

Kinil)  were  only  tri  v 

emed  from  Ninevt  i.  ; 

was  not  ;  .  ?d  poll..;  ■•Y.r.Y'-',  fai  ’ 

The  An  .  >•  {  j  /  )0-  .  J>'  i  CtS  >  j 

' 

on  the  fb  .d  •  t' 

great,  b«  <.'*nn 


t  The  chi..:  ■  '  t  t> 

To  them  »  !  ‘ 

GeschicHe  ’  *  '!'•  ' 

i,q.I ;  fsticche  L  ■  ' ' 

.  .1  a  logy  with  1  *1  ft  •  r*>. 

on  of  'He  h.vo  V  <>j  i  *  v  .'■•  »«*»  v* 

■  1  d.-f 


/ 


Stone  tablet  of  Nabu-apal-iddin,  king  of  Baby¬ 
lon  (about  885-854  B.  C.).  At  the  top  the  god 
Shamash  is  represented  as  seated  within  his  shrine, 
in  front  of  which  is  his  symbol,  before  which  are 
three  figures,  the  first  a  priest  conducting  the  king, 
Nabu-apal-iddin,  who  stands  second,  and  is  followed 
by  the  goddess  “A,”  who  intercedes  for  the  king. 
This  beautiful  slab,  llj^  by  7  inches,  was  found  in 
an  earthenware  casket  at  Sippar  by  Hormuzd  Ras- 
sam  and  is  now  in  the  British  Museum. 

[From  Rassam,  Asshur  and  the  Land  of  Nimrod, 
with  an  introduction  by  Robert  W.  Rogers,  Cin¬ 
cinnati,  1897.] 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURNAZIRPAL 

When  Ashurnazirpal1  (884-858  B.  C.)  suc¬ 
ceeded  his  father  on  the  throne  of  Assyria  he 
inherited  opportunities  rather  than  actual  posses¬ 
sions.  The  kingdom  over  which  he  ruled  from 
his  capital  city  of  Nineveh  was  comparatively 
small.  Babylonia,  while  not  physically  so  strong 
as  Assyria,  was,  nevertheless,  entirely  independ¬ 
ent  under  the  reign  of  Nabu-apal-iddin  (about 
880  B.  C.),  who  probably  began  to  reign  very 
shortly  after  Ashurnazirpal.  The  countries  to 
the  north  which  had  been  conquered  by  Tig- 
lathpileser  I  and  again  overrun  by  Tukulti- 
Ninib  were  only  tributary,  and  not  really  gov¬ 
erned  from  Nineveh.  Furthermore  their  tribute 
was  not  paid  voluntarily,  but  only  when  an 
Assyrian  army  stood  ready  to  collect  it  by  force. 
The  Aramaeans  possessed  the  best  lands  in  the 
upper  Mesopotamian  valley,  and  must  be  met 
on  the  field  of  battle.  The  opportunity  was 
great,  because  none  of  these  peoples  were  strong 

1  The  chief  sources  for  this  reign  are  duly  noted  below  in  the  notes. 
To  them  must  also  be  added  Lehmann-Haupt,  Materialien  zur  dlteren 
Geschichte  Armcniens  und  Mesopotamiens,  pp.  19,  ff.  Schnabel,  Orien- 
talistische  Liter atur zeitung ,  December,  1909,  col.  528  (on  the  king’s 
genealogy  with  references  to  the  texts).  Hilprecht,  Babylonian  Ex¬ 
pedition  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  v,  p.  30. 

193 


194  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

enough  to  oppose  Assyria  single-handed,  and 
there  was  no  present  prospect  of  any  sort  of 
union  between  them.  Ashurnazirpal  was  in 
every  respect  the  man  for  this  situation;  no  king 
like  him  had  arisen  before  in  Assyria. 

Abundant  historical  material  enables  us  to  fol¬ 
low  closely  the  developments  of  his  plans  and  the 
course  and  conduct  of  his  campaigns.  His  stand¬ 
ard  inscription  upon  alabaster1  contains  three 
hundred  and  eighty-nine  lines  of  writing,  and 
gives,  in  almost  epic  grandeur,  the  story  of  the 
truly  imperial  plans  which  he  had  made  for 
Assyria.  This  longest  and  best  known  text  is 
supplemented  by  no  less  than  nineteen  other 
texts,2  some  shorter  originally,  some  fragmen¬ 
tary.  Some  of  these  are  repetitions,  either  in 
the  same  or  varying  phrase,  and  thus  add  to  the 
certainty  of  the  text  which  may  be  made  from 
their  comparison. 

In  the  very  first  year  of  the  king’s  reign  his 
campaigns  of  conquest  begin,  and  it  is  in  the 
north  that  he  must  first  tranquilize  populations 

1  This  fine  monolith,  discovered  by  Layard  at  Nimroud,  was  first 
published  by  him  ( Inscriptions  in  the  Cuneiform,  Character,  plates  1-11) 
in  a  very  fragmentary  manner.  It  is  republished  I  R.  17-26.  The 
first  English  translation  by  Rodwell  ( Records  of  the  Past,  First  Series, 
pp.  37-80)  is  well  supplanted  by  the  new  translation  by  Sayce,  with 
numerous  valuable  geographical  and  historical  notes  ( Records  of  the 
Past,  New  Series,  ii,  pp.  128-177).  There  is  a  very  valuable  transla¬ 
tion  of  col.  i,  lines  1-99,  with  notes,  by  Lhotzky  {Die  Annalen  Assurnazir- 
pal’s,  Miinchen,  1884),  but  this  was  unfortunately  never  carried  further. 
The  entire  text  is  translated  by  Peiser,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  i,  pp.  50-119, 
and  is  edited  anew  in  Budge  and  King,  Annals  of  the  Kings  of  Assyria, 
i,  pp.  212,  ff.  This  supplants  all  previous  editions. 

2  These  are  collected  in  Budge  and  King,  op.  cit.,  pp.  155,  ff. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURNAZIRPAL 


195 


by  destruction  and  savage  butchery.  The  course 
of  his  march  was  first  northwestward,  apparently 
following  closely  the  course  of  the  Tigris  for  a 
short  distance  and  then  striking  due  north  over 
“impassable  roads  and  trackless  mountains”  to 
the  land  of  Numme,  which  we  are  to  locate  west 
of  Lake  Van,  about  the  neighborhood  of  Mush.1 
Here  were  found  strong  cities,  meaning  thereby 
cities  fortified  against  invasion,  which  were  soon 
captured,  with  the  loss  of  many  fighting  men  to 
the  enemy.  According  to  the  Assyrian  account, 
the  remainder  of  the  defenders  fled  into  the 
mountains,  there  to  hide  like  birds  until,  aftei 
a  three  days’  march,  Ashurnazirpal  overtook 
them  “nested”  amid  the  fastnesses  and  slew  two 
hundred  of  them.  Thence  returning  again  into 
their  country,  he  threw  down  the  walls  of  their 
cities  and  dug  them  up,  and  set  fire  to  the  heaps 
of  ruins.  There  was  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the 
survivors  would  pay  tribute  to  Assyria,  if  indeed 
anything  had  been  left  them  wherewith  to  pay 
after  such  a  visitation.  The  memory  of  such 
discipline  might  be  expected  to  abide,  while  the 
report  of  it  was  sure  to  spread  rapidly,  after  the 
fashion  of  an  oriental  story,  among  surrounding 
tribes  who  might  learn  from  it  the  wisdom  of 
surrender  and  of  tribute-paying  without  an  at- 

1  So  Sayce,  Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series,  ii,  p.  138,  note  2.  Mas- 
pero  ( The  Passing  of  the  Empires,  p.  14,  footnote  1)  would  localize  it 
still  more  closely  in  the  “cazas  of  Varto  and  Boulanik  in  the  sandjak 
of  Mush.”  Its  capital,  Gubbe  (Sayce  reads  Libe),  he  would  provision¬ 
ally  identify  with  Gop  (Vital  Cuinet,  La  Turquie  d’Asie,  ii,  pp.  588,  589). 


196  HISTOEY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYEIA 

tempt  at  a  defense  of  national  or  tribal  liberty. 
So  it  fell  out,  for  when  Ashurnazirpal,  leaving 
the  waste  behind  him,  went  southwestward  into 
the  land  of  Kirruri,1  by  the  side  of  Mount 
Rowandiz,  he  found  ready  for  his  taking  a  great 
tribute  of  oxen,  sheep,  wine,  and  a  bowl  of  copper, 
and  an  Assyrian  governor  was  easily  established 
over  the  land,  to  look  rather  after  its  tribute  than 
its  worthy  governing.  And  while  these  events 
were  happening  the  people  of  Gozan  (between 
the  Tigris  and  Lake  Urumiyeh)  and  the  people 
of  Khubushkia,2  who  lived  west  of  them  and 
nearer  the  old  limits  of  Assvria,  also  sent  a 
voluntary  tribute  consisting  of  “horses,  silver, 
gold,  lead,  copper,  and  a  bowl  of  copper.”  From 
such  bloodless  successes  the  king  turned  south¬ 
ward  into  the  land  of  Qurkhi  of  Betani  (along  the 
bank  of  the  Tigris  eastward  of  Diarbekir)  and 
fought  with  a  population  who  only  fled  to  the 
mountains  after  a  bitter  defeat.  They  also  were 
overtaken,  and  two  hundred  and  sixty  of  their 
heads  were  built  into  a  pyramid;  their  cities 
were  wasted  and  burned,  and  an  Assyrian  gov¬ 
ernor  was  set  to  rule  them.  Bubu,  the  son  of  the 
chief  of  Nishtum,  one  of  their  cities,  was  flayed 

1  There  is  much  dispute  about  the  location  of  the  Kirruri.  The 
narrative  of  Ashurnazirpal’s  progress  makes  it  plain  that  they  were 
close  to  the  Numme,  or  Nimme.  Delattre  ( Encore  un  mot  sur  la  Geo¬ 
graphic  Ass.,  p.  10,  note  4)  is  therefore  certainly  wrong  in  locating  them 
near  the  sources  of  the  Tigris.  See  further,  Billerbeck,  Das  Sandschak 
Suleimania,  pp.  15,  ff. 

2  Billerbeck,  op.  cit.,  pp.  20,  f.,  and  compare  Maspero,  op.  cit.,  p.  15. 
footnote. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURNAZIRPAL 


197 


in  the  city  of  Arbela  and  his  skin  spread  on  the 
fortress  wall. 

So  stands  the  sickening  record  of  the  first 
year’s  campaign.1  This  savage  beginning  au¬ 
gured  ill  for  the  new  states  which  had  sprung  up 
since  the  days  of  Tiglathpileser.  What  mercy 
was  there  to  be  found  in  a  man  of  this  quality? 
If  years  and  vigor  were  his  portion,  it  would  be 
difficult  to  set  a  limit  to  his  success  as  a  con¬ 
queror,  while  the  early  placing  of  governors 
over  communities  which  had  surrendered  seemed 
to  imply  that  he  had  also  gifts  as  an  adminis¬ 
trator.  But  we  follow  his  story  further.  In  the 
next  year  (884  B.  C.)  the  king  invaded  Kum- 
mukh,  perhaps  to  insure  payment  of  the  annual 
tribute,  or  there  may  have  been  signs  of  rebel¬ 
lion.  There  was  more  of  conquering  to  do  on 
the  way,  and  then  Kummukh  was  entered, 
apparently  without  a  struggle.  But  before  the 
king’s  purpose  had  developed,  whatever  it  may 
have  been,  he  was  summoned  to  the  banks  of 
the  Euphrates. 

The  Aramaean  communities  along  the  Eu¬ 
phrates  had  no  central  government.  They  lived 
under  the  old  forms  of  city  governments,  some 
still  independent,  some  dependencies  of  Assyria 
with  Assyrian  governors.  Bit-Khalupe2  was  one 

1  Annals  of  Asshurnazirpal,  i,  42-69,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  i,  pp.  59,  ff., 
Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series,  ii,  pp.  138,  ff.  Budge  and  King,  op.  cit., 
pp.  268,  ff. 

2  The  name  may  also  read  Bit-Khadippe.  See  Schiffer,  Die  Ar- 
arnder,  p.  74. 


198  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


of  these  subject  communities  located  on  the 
Khabur,  its  capital  city  being  Suru,  and  the 
governor  Khamitai,  an  Assyrian  subject.  There 
was  a  rebellion  here — so  ran  the  intelligence 
brought  to  the  Assyrians — the  Assyrian  governor 
was  slain,  and  his  place  had  been  given  to  a  cer¬ 
tain  Akhi-yababa  brought  from  Bit-Adini.  It 
was  summons  enough.  Ashumazirpal  showing 
thereby  the  mobility  of  his  army,  came  south¬ 
ward  along  the  course  of  the  Khabur,  halting 
at  Sadikan  (or  Gardikan,  the  modern  Arban)* 1 
to  receive  tribute  from  an  Aramaean  prince, 
Shulman-khaman-ilani,  and  again  at  Shuma  to 
receive  like  honor  from  Ilu-Adad,  in  silver,  gold, 
lead,  plates  of  copper,  variegated  cloths,  and 
lined  vestments.  The  news  of  his  approach 
reached  Bit-Khalupe,  and  the  faint  hearts  of  the 
people  sank  in  them.  They  surrendered,  saying 
as  they  came  from  the  city  gates  and  took  hold 
of  the  conqueror’s  feet,  in  token  of  submission, 
“If  thou  dost  desire,  slay  (us).  If  thou  dost 
desire,  let  live.  That  which  thy  heart  does 
desire,  that  shalt  thou  do.”2  But  even  this 
abject  surrender  did  not  avail  with  such  a 
man  as  Ashumazirpal.  He  attacked  the  city 
and  compelled  the  delivering  up  of  all  the 

1  The  location  is  certain.  See  Rawlinson,  Five  Great  Monarchies,  2d 
ed.,  i,  p.  205,  and  ii,  p.  84,  Hommel,  Geschichte  Babyloniens  und  Assyr- 
iens  pp.  557,  558,  and  Schiffer,  Die  Aram&er,  p.  102,  footnote.  Layard 
( Nineveh  and  Babylon,  pp.  230-242)  found  the  remains  of  a  palace 
on  the  site,  which  had  been  decorated  with  bas-reliefs  and  guarded 
with  lions  and  winged  bulls. 

1  As8hurnazirpal  Annals,  i,  81. 


Colossal  figure  from  the  doorway  of  the  palace  of 
Ashurnazirpal,  king  of  Assyria  (884-859  B.  C.),  ex¬ 
cavated  at  Calah,  in  1847,  by  Austen  Henry  Layard, 
and  now  in  the  British  Museum.  The  figure  is 
composite,  with  the  head  of  a  man,  the  wings  of  an 
eagle,  and  the  body  of  a  lion 

[Photograph  by  W.  A.  Mansell  &  Co.,  London.] 


jt-et  eomi sumit u-a  *oo.  d  oo  Pie 

V  ...  *  V  '  '•  '  ‘  •  WO  '  00 

wa^:  *  re  hr  i.  >r,  here — so  ran  the  intelligence 
brought  to  the  Assyrians — the  Assyrian  governor 
It  1,  :U<L  pi;  0'  h"  t-C  i  n  to  0  (,(  f- 
oan  Akrd-yababa  :  rougl  tro  i  bip-Admi 
vas  si  mmons  enough  /Vshun  azirpal  showing 

ward  .  eours< 

•  '  :  .  ?  w-.  n.  '-  ^.y 

tolQ,oaeJcq  ad-t  lo-yevrioob  9$ 


ai  911/38  9 rft  .mimuM  dai/M  grfl  ni  v/on  bo£ 
nil  lo  aifiiw  odt  gTxuu  b  lo  hood  arlt  tfliW  <etia6qmoo 

'  noil  b  16  ybod  eiit  bnc  t/)f^B6) 

_ 

f  iiobnoJ  ,.o’)  i  IfesiuiM  .A  .77  :(d  rfawapipri^fl 

'  •  •  i  '  i  g 

N  p  ’  •  ■  ‘  -  '  .  ■  ; ' v  hi  > I  ( 1 

»f  ,he  ioj  c  :  v.  omission, 

“ F  the  n  dof>;  b  ,  \  )  [f  thou  ‘lost 

lich-  thy  heart  does 
do.  ire,  hat  shalt  thou  do.*2  Bui  even  this 
f-bjeot  surrender  did  avail  with  such  a 


;  mm  :  As  -  vi irpad  v  a*  tacked  1  no  city 
n  co  \  •.  ti '.*.■•  .  e  iug  up  of  all  the 


-  '  nsr..',  •?  Qf  iOl  \loiuv~rh  ec,  2d 

r-  •  6r  ichithtc  Ba>  /loniens  und  Assyr- 

' 

(A  mt«h  xia:  >.  •  ro  d  re  .“Jim*  x-~  [.•u-lrtc* 


■  <*  .  p  •  •  ■ 


which 


•  v  i  .  lief  and  -rv  r.i-  i 


f  '•< 

P  >5  -»•*</♦ 

'  fzr'?/ }'->* 


p”  X; 

'tk. 

a*  " 


WtlfCED' 


H£f.,OE8  UCN 


Psow 
*  6S 


A  &*>$$'«# y: 

AS8VRi*.  g  , 


,5m  A  N 


£XCAVA,Tf  o 


PAL,  " 
<-*YAB0 


II — IDS 


' 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURNAZIRPAL 


199 


soldiers  who  had  joined  in  the  rebellion.  No 
mention  is  made  of  the  treatment  of  the  private 
soldiers,  but  their  officers’  legs  were  cut  off.  The 
nobles  who  had  shared  in  the  uprising  were 
flayed,  and  their  skins  stretched  over  a  pyramid 
erected,  and  apparently  for  this  very  purpose, 
at  the  chief  gate  of  the  city.  Then  the  city, 
plundered  of  all  its  wealth  and  beauty,1  was  left 
a  monument  of  ferocity  and  a  warning  to  con¬ 
spirators.  The  unhappy  Akhi-yababa  was  sent 
off  to  Nineveh,  there  to  be  flayed  that  his  skin 
might  adorn  the  fortress  walls,  while  his  place 
as  Assyrian  governor  over  Bit-Khalupe  was 
taken  by  Azilu.  As  in  the  former  year,  the 
story  of  this  punishment  went  abroad.  The 
rulers  of  Laqi2  and  Khindanu3  hastened  to  send 
tribute  to  the  conqueror  while  he  was  staying 
at  Suri,  while  yet  another  Aramaean  people,  the 
Sukhi,  sent  Ilu-ibni,  their  ruler,  and  his  son  to 
carry  a  costly  tribute  direct  to  Nineveh. 

Following  these  events  there  was  a  lull  in  the 
king’s  actions,  while  he  stayed  at  Nineveh,  as 
though  there  were  no  more  lands  to  conquer. 
But  news  reached  him  of  a  revolt  among  Assyrian 
colonists  planted  at  Khalzilukha4  by  Shalma- 

1  The  possession  of  so  much  wealth  and  of  so  many  artistic  objects 
is  an  instructive  commentary  upon  the  age  and  extent  of  this  civilization. 

2  Their  territory  lay  along  the  Euphrates  and  probably  a  little  to 
the  south  of  the  Suru. 

3  Sayce  ( Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series,  ii,  p.  144,  note  2)  doubt¬ 
fully  suggests  that  Khindanu  may  be  “the  Giddan  of  classical  geog¬ 
raphy,  on  the  eastern  bank  of  the  Euphrates.” 

4  Or  Khalzi-dipkha.  Maspero  ( The  Passing  of  the  Empires,  p.  19, 
note  2)  would  locate  it  in  the  district  of  Severek. 


200  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


neser  I ,  under  the  leadership  of  one  Khula. 
Again  must  the  king  march  northward  into 
lands  always  troubled.  On  this  march  the  king 
erected  at  the  sources  of  the  river  Supnat  a  great 
inscribed  portrait  of  himself  by  the  side  of  the 
reliefs  of  Tiglathpileser  I  and  Tukulti-Ninib. 
Thence  he  moved  northwestward  to  the  slopes 
of  Mount  Masius,  where  Khula  was  captured, 
his  men  butchered,  and  his  city  razed.  On  the 
return  march,  in  the  country  of  Nirbi,  the  low¬ 
lands  about  the  modern  Diarbekir,1  he  took  and 
devastated  the  chief  city,  Tela,  which  was 
defended  by  a  threefold  wall,  slaying  three 
thousand  of  its  fighting  men.  A  little  farther 
south  the  king  approached  the  city  of  Tuskha,2 
in  whose  site  he  apparently  recognized  an  im¬ 
portant  vantage  point,  for  he  halted  to  restore 
it.  The  old  city  wall  was  changed,  and  a 
new  wall  built  in  massive  strength  from  foun¬ 
dation  to  the  coping.  Within  these  walls  a 
royal  palace  was  erected,  an  entirely  new 
structure.  A  new  relief  of  the  king’s  person, 
fashioned  of  white  limestone,  and  inscribed 
with  an  account  of  the  king’s  wars  and  con¬ 
quests  in  the  land  of  Nairi,  was  set  in  the 
city  walls,  to  be  studied  as  a  warning  by  its 


1  So  Sayce,  Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series,  ii,  p.  146,  note  1. 

2  Site  uncertain.  Rawlinson  (“Assyrian  Discovery,”  The  Athenaeum, 
1863,  vol.  i,  p.  228)  would  locate  it  at  Kurkh,  near  the  Tigris,  east  of 
Diarbekir.  At  this  place  was  found  a  monolith  of  Ashurnazirpal, 
and  this  proves  that  he  was  in  some  way  identified  with  the  place. 
There  is,  however,  no  real  proof  that  it  was  Tuskha. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURNAZIRPAL 


201 


inhabitants.  The  city  thus  rebuilt  and  re¬ 
stored  was  peopled  by  Assyrian  colonists  and 
made  a  storehouse  for  grain  and  fodder.  The 
aim,  apparently,  was  to  use  it  as  a  base  of 
supplies  in  military  operations  against  the 
north  and  west.  Some  of  the  inhabitants 
of  the  land  had  fled,  but  upon  payment  of 
homage  were  allowed  to  return  to  their  cities 
and  homes,  many  of  these  in  ruins.  A  heavy 
annual  tribute  was  put  upon  them,  and  their 
sons  were  taken  away  to  Nineveh  as  hostages. 

While  engaged  in  this  work  of  reconstruc¬ 
tion  much  tribute  was  received  from  neighbor¬ 
ing  states.  Later  in  the  year  another  dis¬ 
trict  in  the  land  of  Nirbu,  near  Mount  Masius, 
revolted,  and  was  subdued  in  the  usual  manner. 
On  the  return  journey  to  Nineveh  the  people 
of  Qurkhi,  the  inhabitants  about  Malatiyeh, 
and  the  Hittites  paid  tribute  to  the  apparently 
resistless  conqueror.  The  next  year  (882) 
witnessed  an  uprising  in  the  southeast  led  by 
Zab-Dadi,  a  prince  of  the  country  of  Dagara, 
to  whom  the  people  of  Zamua1  also  joined 
themselves.  There  was  thus  in  revolt  a  con¬ 
siderable  section  of  territory  lying  in  the  moun¬ 
tains  east  of  the  Tigris  and  between  the  Lower 
Zab  and  the  Turnat  (modern  Shirwan)  Rivers. 
Not  satisfied  with  the  attempt  to  escape  annual 
tribute,  these  daring  warriors  thought  to  in- 

1  The  location  of  the  Zamua  is  easily  determined.  See  Billerbeck, 
Das  Sandxchak  Suleimania,  pp.  IS,  39,  ff.,  etc. 


202  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


vade  Assyrian  soil.  The  battle  with  them, 
fought  out  in  the  lowlands,  was  an  Assyrian 
victory,  and  the  campaign  ended  in  the  receipt 
of  a  heavy  tribute,  and  the  taking  of  many 
cities,  which,  contrary  to  former  custom,  were 
not  destroyed.1  This  new  method  was,  how¬ 
ever,  soon  abandoned,  for  the  next  year  (881) 
these  people  refused  to  pay  their  tribute,  and 
their  country  was  again  invaded.  This  time 
savagery  had  its  sway,  and  the  cities  were 
dug  up  and  burned,  while  blood  was  poured 
out  like  water.  It  was  now  safe  to  advance 
through  the  broken  land  farther  into  the 
mountains  for  more  plunder,  but  we  are  not 
able  to  follow  the  king’s  movements  in  this 
extended  campaign  for  lack  of  geographical 
knowledge. 

It  is  especially  noteworthy  that,  though 
the  usual  destructions  prevailed,  there  were 
again  displayed  some  constructive  ideas,  for 
the  city  of  Atlila,2  which  had  previously  been 
destroyed  by  the  Babylonians,  was  rebuilt 
and  made  an  Assyrian  fortress,  with  a  king’s 
palace,  and  with  the  Assyrian  name  of  Dur- 
Asshur.  This  completed,  for  a  time  at  least, 
the  subjugation  of  the  eastern  borders  of  the 


1  Asshurnazirpal,  ii,  23-49.  See  translations  by  Sayce,  op.  cit.,  pp. 
149,  ff.,  and  by  Peiser,  op.  cit.,  pp.  74,  ff. 

2  The  location  is  quite  unknown.  Maspero  ( The  Passing  of  the  Em¬ 
pires,  p.  26,  note  1)  would  identify  it  with  the  modern  Kerkuk.  Biller- 
beck  ( Das  Sandschak,  etc.,  p.  36)  would  place  it  farther  to  the  southeast, 
“west  of  Segirme  and  Chalchalan-dagh.” 


203 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURNAZIRPAL 

kingdom,  and  the  king  could  establish  a  reg¬ 
ular  collection  of  tribute  in  the  north.  The 
wealth  poured  into  Calah  year  after  year  in 
these  raids  must  have  been  enormous.  Here¬ 
in  lies  the  explanation  of  the  possibility  of 
maintaining  a  standing  army  and  carrying  on 
conquests  of  outlying  territory.  The  Assyrian 
people  could  not  have  stood  the  drain  of  re¬ 
sources  necessary  for  foreign  conquest,  nor 
could  the  merchants  of  Nineveh  have  borne 
a  system  of  taxation  sufficient  to  maintain 
armies  so  constantly  on  the  march.  It  is 
noteworthy  that  nearly  every  campaign  made 
thus  far  in  this  brilliant  reign  was  for  tribute 
gathering.  The  king  was  not  yet  ready  for 
the  attempt  to  add  largely  to  his  empire,  nor 
even  to  extend  widely  the  area  of  his  tribute 
getting.  Time  for  the  training  of  his  army 
was  necessary,  and  funds  had  to  be  accumu¬ 
lated  for  the  payment  and  equipment  of  his 
troops.  Undoubtedly  many  adventurers  from 
among  foreign  conquered  peoples  fought  in 
the  armies  of  Ashurnazirpal,  and  found  their 
compensation  in  such  booty  as  they  were 
allowed  to  appropriate.  It  remains,  however, 
true  that  the  cost  of  the  military  establish¬ 
ment  must  have  been  great,  and  the  collection 
of  tribute  supplied  this  outlay.  The  king 
watched  closely  the  collection  of  tribute,  and 
nonpayment  anywhere  was  the  signal  for  a 
sudden  descent  on  the  offenders.  “During 


204  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


the  eponymy  of  Bel-aku  (881  B.  C.)  I  was 
staying  in  Nineveh  when  news  was  brought 
that  Ameka  and  Arastua  had  withheld  the 
tribute  and  forced  labor  of  Ashur  my  lord”1 
— so  began  this  campaign  of  which  we  have 
just  spoken,  and  so  began  many  another. 
Herein  we  have  an  instructive  commentary 
on  the  whole  policy  of  Assyria  for  years  to 
come.  Let  us  recall  the  need  of  conquering 
the  Aramaeans  to  secure  commercial  extension, 
and  the  need  of  the  tribute  to  maintain  an 
army  capable  of  such  conquest,  and  in  these 
two  motives,  the  one  depending  upon  the 
other,  we  have  the  explanation  of  Assyrian 
history  for  this  reign,  and  for  not  less  than 
six  reigns  after  it. 

In  the  next  year  (880  B.  C.)  the  king  col¬ 
lected  in  person  the  tribute  of  the  land  of 
Kummukh,  afterward  pushing  on  through  the 
land  of  Qurkhi,  into  the  fastnesses  of  Mount 
Masius,  for  a  like  purpose,  and  finally  return¬ 
ing  to  the  fortress  of  Tushkha  to  continue 
his  former  building  operations.  That  so  large 
a  part  of  the  year  is  occupied  with  the  care¬ 
ful  and  systematic  collection  of  tribute  fore¬ 
shadows  a  great  campaign  of  conquest  toward 
which  this  storing  up  of  supplies  of  money 
and  material  is  a  necessary  preparation.  Pos¬ 
sibly  the  traders  of  Nineveh,  profiting  by  the 
earlier  punishment  of  the  Aramaeans,  were 


1  Annals,  col.  ii,  line  49,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.  i,  pp.  78,  79. 


Stele  of  Ashurnazirpal  III,  with  figure  of  the  king, 
and  divine  emblems  in  relief.  In  front  of  it  is  an 
altar  which  stood  originally  before  the  stele  at  the 
entrance  of  the  temple  of  Ninib. 

British  Museum,  Nimroud  Gallery,  Nos.  847,  848. 

[Reproduced  from  Assyrian  Sculptures.  Klein- 
mann  &  Co.] 


v04  ll  v  '  i.’Y  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


the’  ej  of  Bel-aku  (881  B.  C.)  I  was 

. 

t  mute  and  forced  labor  •  of  Ashur  my  lord”1 

so  began  this  campaign  of  which  we  have 
ist  spoken,  and  so  began  mam  another. 
Herein  we  have  an  in  commentary 

on  the  whole  policy  of  Assyria  far-  years  to 
come.  Let  us  recall  the  need  of  conquering 
paid  oHf  lo  dim  VIII  kqiisBUimlaA  to  oloiB 
hr  si  i i  lo  fnoil  Si  doilwi  ni  eraoldmo  oaivib  bm 
oilt  1b  abia  axil  oiolad  vfhsnigno  bools  doixivx  anlLe 

.duuYi  to  olqnxol  qdi  lo  oo/iinlqo 

.8h8  .soA  ,  /ioIIbO  twoimiX 

nfioOI  jmwfcvWoft  moil  heohboiq^fl] 

six  n  ign  ■  [.oO  A  nxiBirt 

In  the  next  jear 

lee  red  in  perse  a  raM  of 

Kummukh,  afterward  p  b.  ,h  the 

lai  of  \  jurkhi,  into  i  :  T  x  ji  Mount 
Masius,  for  a  like  purpose  and  finally  return- 
inn  to  the  fortress  o‘  i  ushkha  to  continue 
his  former  building  operations.  That  so  large 
a  part  of  the  year  '  occupied  with  the  care- 
iul  and  system  c  e  collection  of  tribute  fore- 
shade  vs  a  x  wruedgn  oi  conquest  toward 
which  v  up  of  supplies  of  money 

;x’  nmo  i,  •  it  *essm*y  preparation.  Pos- 
the  txwtm  •  cx  Nineveh  profiting  by  the 
earlier  r  iishr-a  c;  of  the  Aramaeans,  were 

■_  ii  ii  ii,  liitY  'V.  K&iliu  ■  brifl .  hi"!  i,  pp.  <8,  ■  9. 


04 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURNAZIRPAL 


205 


urging  the  king  to  wider  conquests  in  the 
prosperous  west,  which  would  result  in  a  still 
further  extension  of  their  trade.  However 
that  may  be,  the  year  879  brought  matters 
of  immense  importance  in  Assyrian  history. 
He  had  now  transferred  his  capital  to  Calah, 
and  it  was  thence  that  he  set  out  and  first 
marched  southwest  to  the  Euphrates  and  the 
Khabur.  The  Aramaeans  of  Bit-Khalupe  had 
not  forgotten  their  sore  discipline,  and  paid 
their  tribute  at  once.  And  in  like  manner 
one  community  after  another  gave  their  silver 
and  gold,  their  horses  and  cattle,  to  their 
suzerain  as  he  moved  slowly  down  the  Eu¬ 
phrates  to  Anat  (modern  Anath). 

All  this  resembles  former  campaigns,  but 
now  a  sudden  change  appears.  Attempting 
to  collect  tribute  at  Suru  (another  city  of 
the  same  name  as  the  capital  of  Bit-Khalupe), 
Ashurnazirpal  finds  the  Sukhi,  whose  chief 
city,  Suri,  was  in  league  with  the  Kassite  Baby¬ 
lonians  in  their  resistance.  The  Babylonian 
king  at  this  time  was  Nabu-apal-iddin,  who 
began  to  reign  in  his  ancient  city  probably 
very  soon  after  Ashurnazirpal  began  to  reign 
in  Assyria.  He  was  either  a  weak  man  or 
a  man  of  extraordinary  policy,  or  he  would 
long  before  this  have  been  in  conflict  with  his 
northern  neighbor.  In  the  discontent  of  the 
Sukhi  he  saw  a  hopeful  opportunity  for  in¬ 
juring  Assyria  without  too  great  a  risk  to  his 


206  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

own  fortunes.  He  contributed  to  the  revolt 
not  less  than  fifty  horsemen  and  three  thousand 
footmen  under  the  command  of  his  own  brother, 
Gabdanu — a  considerable  contribution  in  the 
warfare  of  that  century.  For  two  days  the 
battle  raged  in  and  about  Suru  before  the 
Assyrians  obtained  the  mastery.  Ashurnazirpal 
punished  this  uprising  in  his  usual  way,  by 
utterly  wasting  the  city,  slaying  many  of  its 
inhabitants,  and  carrying  away  immense  spoil. 
He  is  probably  narrating  only  the  simple 
truth  when  he  says  that  the  fear  of  his  sov¬ 
ereignty  prevailed  as  far  as  Kardunyash  and 
overwhelmed  the  land  of  Kaldu. 

In  Suri  he  left  a  permanent  memorial  of 
these  victories  which  he  describes  glowingly  in 
this  way:  “I  fashioned  a  mighty  image  of  my 
royal  person,  and  my  power  and  my  glory  I 
inscribed  upon  it,  and  I  set  it  up  within  his 
palace.  I  fashioned  tablets  and  I  inscribed 
upon  them  my  glory  and  my  prowess,  and  I 
set  them  up  within  his  city  gate.”  The  words 
are  good,  but  it  may  be  doubted  whether  they 
would  be  attractive  to  the  people  of  Suri,  whose 
homes  had  fallen  before  the  torch. 

The  Babylonian  king,  though  he  continued 
to  reign  for  some  time  after  this,  gave  no 
further  trouble  in  Assyria.  He  was  kept  busily 
engaged  in  his  own  land  in  two  important 
enterprises.  The  Aramaean  tribe  known  as 
the  Sutu,  whom  we  have  met  in  this  story 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURNAZIRPAL 


207 


in  northern  Babylonia,  had  centuries  before 
wrought  ruin  at  the  ancient  religious  city  of 
Sippar,  where  the  worship  of  the  sun  god 
has  its  especial  seat.  With  the  destruction 
of  the  temples  the  worship  carried  on  for  so 
many  centuries  ended.  The  former  kings  be¬ 
longing  to  the  dynasty  of  the  Sea  Lands, 
Shamash-shipak  and  Kasshu-nadin-akhe,  had 
tried  in  vain  to  prevent  the  total  destruction 
of  the  temple  and  to  reorganize  its  worship. 
Their  efforts  had  completely  failed,  and  the 
temple  had  now  become  a  hopeless  ruin,  cov¬ 
ered  with  sand  of  the  near-by  desert.  Here 
was  a  work  for  the  pious  king.  Dislodging  the 
Sutu  from  the  city  by  force  of  arms,  Nabu- 
apal-iddin  began  the  reconstruction  and  restora¬ 
tion  of  the  fallen  temple,  and  carried  the  work 
to  a  successful  conclusion,  setting  up  again 
the  splendid  old  ceremonial  worship  of  the 
sun.  The  inscription  in  which  he  has  cele¬ 
brated  these  deeds  is  one  of  the  most  beau¬ 
tiful  monuments  of  ancient  Babylonia.1  To 

1  Rassam  in  making  excavations  at  Abu  Habba  found  a  piece  of 
asphalt  pavement,  beneath  which  “an  inscribed  earthenware  casket, 
with  a  lid,  was  discovered  .  .  .  about  three  feet  below  the  surface.  In¬ 
side  it  was  a  stone  tablet  eleven  and  one  half  inches  long  by  seven  inches 
wide”  (Rassam,  Asshur  and  the  Land  of  Nimrod ,  p.  402).  It  is  inscribed 
minutely  on  both  sides  with  three  columns  of  writing,  and  on  the  ob¬ 
verse  at  the  top  is  a  small  bas-relief  representing  religious  ceremonies 
before  the  figure  of  the  sun  god  (see  illustrations  in  Rassam,  ibid.,  or 
in  Hommel,  Geschichte,  p.  596).  Pinches  announced  its  discovery 
( Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archceology,  iii,  pp.  109,  ff.) ,  and 
later  published  part  of  it  (ibid.,  viii,  pp.  164,  ff.).  The  entire  text  is 
published  V  R.  60,  61,  and  it  is  translated  by  Joh.  Jeremias,  Beitrdge 
zur  Assyriologie,  i,  268,  ff.,  and  by  Peiser,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  iii,  part  1, 


208  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


carry  them  out  fully  he  seems  to  have  main¬ 
tained  the  peace  with  Ashurnazirpal  and  his 
successor. 

But  if  the  success  and  severity  of  Ashurna¬ 
zirpal  caused  the  king  of  Babylon  to  occupy 
himself  entirely  with  internal  affairs,  it  had 
little  effect  on  the  hardy  and  daring  Aramaeans, 
for  scarcely  had  the  Assyrian  king  returned  to 
Calah  when  he  was  again  called  into  the  field 
by  the  revolt  of  the  men  of  Laqi  and  Khindanu 
and  of  the  whole  people  of  the  Sukhi.  This 
time  the  king  was  better  prepared  for  the 
work  in  hand,  for  he  had  boats  constructed 
at  Suru,  and  was  therefore  able  to  follow  the 
fugitives  to  the  river  islands.  The  ruin  of  this 
campaign  seems  awful,  even  after  the  lapse 
of  centuries.  The  cities  were  utterly  broken 
down  and  burned,  the  inhabitants  butchered 
when  they  could  be  taken,  and  even  the  stand¬ 
ing  crops  were  destroyed  that  neither  man 
nor  beast  might  eat  and  live.  It  was  no  real 
compensation  for  such  deeds  that  two  new 
cities  were  founded,  one  on  the  hither  bank 
of  the  Euphrates,  named  Kar-Asshur-nazir-pal 
(that  is,  fortress  of  A.),  and  the  other  on  the 
far  bank,  called  Nibarti-Asshur* 1  (that  is,  the 

pp.  174,  ff.,  and  in  exhaustive  fashion  by  King,  Babylonian  Boundary 
Stones,  pp.  120,  ff. 

1  There  is  no  indication  of  the  location  of  either  of  these  Assyrian 
strongholds.  Maspero  ( The  Passing  of  the  Empires,  p.  30,  note  4) 
has  this  suggestion  to  make:  “A  study  of  the  map  shows  that  the  Assyr¬ 
ians  could  not  become  masters  of  the  country  without  occupying  the 
passes  of  the  Euphrates;  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  Kar-Assur-nazir-pal 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURNAZIRPAL 


209 


ford  of  Asshur),  for  these  could  only  be  in¬ 
tended  for  military  purposes,  and  not  as  a 
contribution  to  civilization  or  as  abiding  places 
for  a  ruined  people.  But  the  king  was  not 
satisfied  that  he  had  got  at  the  root  of  the 
trouble,  and  the  next  year  followed  up  his 
advantage  with  another  campaign  apparently 
intended  to  cut  off  any  further  rebellion  at 
the  fountain  head.  It  seems  probable  that 
the  real  source  of  the  energy  and  enthusiasm 
which  sustained  so  many  rebellions  among  the 
Aramaeans  was  the  state  of  Bit-Adini,  on 
both  banks  of  the  Euphrates,  near  the  point 
where  it  takes  a  westerly  course  after  break¬ 
ing  through  the  Taurus.1  The  most  powerful 
Aramaean  settlements  were  here,  and  the  cap¬ 
ital  city,  Kap-rabi2  (great  rock),  was  populous, 
well  fortified,  and  defiant.  If  this  city  were 
taken,  there  would  be  hopes  of  crushing  out 
completely  the  spirit  of  resistance. 

In  his  next  campaign  (877  B.  C.)  Ashurna- 

is  El-Halebiyeh,  and  Nibarti-assur,  Zalebiyeh,  the  Zenobia  of  Roman 
times.  For  the  ruins  of  these  towns,  compare  Sachau,  Reise  in  Syrien 
und  Mesop.,  pp.  256-259,  and  Peters,  Nippur,  or  Explorations  and 
Adventures  on  the  Euphrates,  vol.  i,  pp.  109-114.” 

1  Maspero  ( The  Passing  of  the  Empires,  p.  30,  note  5)  makes  this 
definite  statement:  ‘‘Bit-Adini  appears  to  have  occupied,  on  the  right 
bank  of  the  Euphrates,  a  part  of  the  cazas  of  Ain  Tab,  Rum-Kaleh, 
and  Birejik,  that  of  Suruji,  minus  the  Nakhiyeh  of  Harran,  the  larger 
part  of  the  cazas  of  Membij  and  of  Rakkah,  and  part  of  the  caza  of 
Zor,  the  cazas  being  those  represented  on  the  maps  of  Vital  Cuinet, 
La  Turquie  d’Asie,  vol.  ii.”  For  a  study  of  the  Assyrian  references 
see  Schiffer,  Die  Aramaer,  pp.  61,  ff 

2  Ashurnazirpal  (col.  iii,  line  51,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  i,  p.  103)  pictur¬ 
esquely  describes  Kap-rabi  thus:  ‘‘The  city  was  very  strong,  like  a 
cloud  suspended  from  heaven.” 


210  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


zirpal  besieged  the  city  and  took  it  by  assault, 
in  which  eight  hundred  of  the  enemy  were 
killed  and  two  thousand  four  hundred  made 
prisoners.  This  was  followed  by  its  complete 
destruction,  and  an  end  was  therefore  made 
of  incitements  to  rebellion  in  Bit-Adini.  The 
effect  on  the  remaining  Aramaean  settlements 
along  the  Euphrates  was  as  marked  as  it  was 
sudden.  Others  sent  their  unpaid  tribute  at 
once,  and  there  was,  during  the  reign  of  Ashur- 
nazirpal,  no  further  trouble  over  the  prompt 
payment  of  the  Aramaean  tribute.  With  this 
campaign  Ashurnazirpal  had  not  indeed  ended 
forever  the  fitful  struggles  of  the  Aramaeans 
against  superior  force.  These  were  all  renewed 
again  in  the  very  next  reign.  He  had,  how¬ 
ever,  settled  the  question  that  there  could  be 
no  strong  Aramaean  state  in  that  valley.  The 
Aramaean  people  must  go  elsewhere  to  make 
their  contribution  to  history  and  civilization. 

A  The  time  had  come,  therefore,  when  all 
lands  north,  east,  and  west  as  far  as  the  Eu¬ 
phrates  which  had  paid  tribute  to  Tiglath- 
pileser  I  were  again  paying  it  regularly  to 
Ashurnazirpal.  There  were  no  more  of  these 
states  left  to  tranquillize.  Most  of  them  had 
been  dealt  with  cruelly,  many  had  been  dev¬ 
astated,  and  thousands  of  their  inhabitants 
butchered  with  all  the  accompaniments  of 
Oriental  savagery.  These  communities  had  not 
been  added  regularly  to  the  empire  to  be 


THE  KE1GN  OE  ASH UEN AZI REAL 


211 


governed  by  satraps  or  officers  making  regular 
reports  to  the  king  in  Assyria  and  receiving 
instructions  from  him.  If  such  had  been  the 
plan,  the  peoples  who  paid  tribute  would 
have  been  receiving  some  sort  of  return  in 
social  order  and  royal  direction  for  the  heavy 
tribute  paid.  They  were  receiving  nothing 
in  return.  They  had  to  look  to  themselves 
for  protection  against  the  forays  of  barbarians 
who  inhabited  the  mountain  passes  about  them. 
Such  a  status  was  not  likely  to  be  permanent. 
While  their  punishment  had  been  too  severe 
for  them  to  venture  again  to  excite  the  wrath 
of  such  a  monarch,  they  might  nourish  their 
wrath  and  hope  for  a  better  day.  Perhaps 
the  next  Assyrian  king  might  be  a  weak  man, 
and  they  would  be  able  to  throw  off  the  yoke 
in  his  day.  Meantime,  while  Ashurnazirpal 
held  the  reins  of  government,  it  would  be 
well  to  pay  the  tribute  and  give  no  excuse 
for  a  raid.  But  with  this  quiescence  of  the 
tributary  states  the  employment  of  his  army 
became  a  serious  question  with  Ashurnazirpal. 
He  had  made  a  fighting  machine  such  as  had 
not  been  known  before.  His  men  had  been 
trained  in  adversity,  toughened  by  hard  marches, 
and  brutalized  by  scenes  of  blood  and  fire. 
He  could  not  disband  it,  for  at  once  the  tribute¬ 
paying  states,  unterrified  by  it,  would  throw 
off  their  dependence  and  the  influx  of  gold 
would  cease.  He  could  not  hold  it  in  idle- 


212  HISTOEY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYKIA 


ness,  for  such  an  aggregation  of  brutal  pas¬ 
sions  would  inflame  the  commonwealth  and 
disturb  the  peace.  The  army  would  also 
soon  lose  its  efficiency  if  unemployed,  for  the 
elaborate  modern  systems  of  drill  for  the 
conserving  of  health  and  the  promotion  of 
discipline  were  unknown.  It  is  plain  that 
these  men  must  fight  somewhere;  but  where 
should  it  be,  and  for  what  ulterior  purpose? 
Ambition  might  answer  to  the  king,  for  con¬ 
quest  and  the  extension  of  Assyrian  territory, 
and  greed  might  urge  to  further  tribute  get¬ 
ting,  and  commercial  enterprise  might  clamor 
for  the  reopening  of  old  lines  of  trade  to  the 
west  through  the  territory  of  the  Aramaeans. 
It  was  this  last  which  prevailed,  though  the 
two  former  ideas  had  their  influence  and  their 
share  in  the  decision. 

It  was  in  the  month  of  August1  of  the  year 
877  that  Ashurnazirpal  began  the  great  west¬ 
ward  movement  in  which  all  his  highest  en¬ 
deavors  were  to  culminate.  All  else  had  been 
but  preparation.  The  first  part  of  his  march, 
across  the  great  Mesopotamian  valley,  was 
little  else  than  a  triumphal  progress.  Every 
one  of  the  Aramaean  settlements  on  or  near 
his  route  to  the  Euphrates  sent  costly  tribute, 
consisting  of  chariots,  horses,  silver,  gold,  lead, 
and  copper,  most  of  which  must  be  sent  back 
to  Calah,  while  the  king  marched  on.  When 


1  On  the  eighth  day  of  Elul  {Annals, ’col.  iii,  line  56). 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURNAZIRPAL 


213 


the  Euphrates  was  reached  it  was  crossed  at 
its  flood,  in  boats  made  of  the  skins  of  ani¬ 
mals,  and  the  city  of  Carchemish1  was  entered. 
The  glory  of  the  city  had  departed.  Once  the 
capital  of  the  great  Hittite  empire,  now  broken 
in  power,  it  was  now  merely  the  center  of  a 
small  state,  of  which  Sangara  was  ruler.  His 
policy  was  direct  and  simple.  He  was  will¬ 
ing  to  pay  down  the  sum  of  twenty  talents 
of  silver,  one  hundred  talents  of  bronze,  two 
hundred  and  fifty  talents  of  iron,  along  with 
chains  and  beads  of  gold  and  much  other 
treasure,  if  he  were  simply  let  alone.  Though 
deprived  of  its  political  influence,  Carchemish 
was  now  an  important  commercial  city.  War 
could  only  destroy  its  commerce,  and  success 
against  the  renowned  Assyrian  conqueror  was 
doubtful,  if  not  absolutely  impossible.  National 
pride  counted  for  nothing.  The  primary  desire 
was  to  get  the  Assyrians  out  of  the  country 
as  soon  as  possible;  and  well  might  they  pay 
a  heavy  tribute  to  gain  so  great  a  boon  as 
that.  Neighboring  states,  fearing  invasion  and 
plunder,  likewise  sent  tribute,  and  the  king 
could  move  on  farther  westward.  Crossing 
the  river  Apre  (modern  Afrin)  after  a  short 
march,  Ashurnazirpal  came  into  the  territory 
of  another  small  state,  called  Khatin,2  which 

1  Carchemish  stood  on  the  west  bank  of  the  Euphrates,  above  the 
mouth  of  the  Sajur.  The  modern  name  is  variously  given  by  different 
travelers  as  Jerablfts  (Skene,  Wilson,  Sayce)  or  Jerabis  (Sachau,  Schra¬ 
der,  Delitzsch).  The  latter  is  preferable. 

2  Formerly  read  Patin, 


214  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

was  apparently  Hittite1  or  partially  so.  The 
capital  of  the  state  was  Kunulua,  and  the 
ruler  was  Lubarna,  whose  territory  extended 
from  the  Apre  to  the  Orontes,  and  thence 
over  the  mountain  ridges  to  the  sea  near 
Eleutheros,  with  northern  and  southern  limits 
not  now  definable.2  It  was  a  rich  and  fertile 
country,  and  might  well  excite  the  cupidity 
of  the  Assyrian  army.  Lubarna  offered  no 
resistance  to  the  invader,  but  was  anxious 
only  to  expedite  his  progress,  with  presents 
truly  regal  in  amount  and  in  magnificence.3 
The  march  was  then  southward  across  the 
Orontes  to  the  city  of  Aribua,4  located  near 
the  Sangura  River,  which  was  a  southerly 
outpost  of  Lubarna.  Though  Lubarna  had  so 
thoroughly  submitted  to  the  Assyrians  in  hope 
of  getting  them  out  of  the  country,  Aribua 
was  made  an  Assyrian  outpost,  colonists  set¬ 
tled  in  it,  and  grain  and  straw,  harvested  by 
force  in  the  lands  of  the  Lukhuti,  were  stored 
in  it.  Whether  the  town  was  to  become  the 
capital  of  an  Assyrian  province  or  merely  a 
base  of  supplies  for  possible  hostile  operations 
does  not  appear.  And  now  there  was  no  one 

1  See  Garstang,  The  Land  of  the  Hittites,  p.  376,  footnote  6. 

2  See  Schrader,  Keilinschriften  und  Gesechichtsforschung,  pp.  214-221, 
and  Winckler,  Altorientalische  Forschungen,  i,  pp.  3,  ff. 

3  “Twenty  talents  of  silver,  one  talent  of  gold,  one  hundred  talents 
of  lead,  one  hundred  talents  of  iron,  one  thousand  oxen,  ten  thousand 
sheep,  one  thousand  garments,  and  cloth  ...  as  his  tribute  I  received.” 
Ashurnazirpal,  col.  iii,  73-77  (Budge  and  King,  Annals,  i,  pp.  368,  369). 

4  The  exact  location  of  Aribua  has  not  been  found  (Winckler,  Alt¬ 
orientalische  Forschungen,  i,  p.  5). 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURNAZ I RPAL 


215 


to  oppose  the  king’s  march  north  and  west 
into  the  green  slopes  of  the  Lebanon.  From 
beneath  the  historic  cedars  an  Assyrian  king 
again  looked  out  over  the  Mediterranean,  and 
with  far  greater  hopes  of  securing  a  foothold 
there  than  any  of  his  predecessors  had  ever 
had,  whether  Assyrian  or  Babylonian. 

He  had  begun  this  campaign,  as  we  have 
seen,  in  the  month  of  August.  It  must  have 
been  upon  the  very  verge  of  winter,  with 
flurries  of  snow  in  the  mountains  as  he  turned 
homeward  toward  Assyria  to  offer  to  the 
goddess  Ishtar  in  Nineveh  the  wood  which 
he  had  brought  for  her  temple. 

While  this  invasion  was  in  some  measure 
a  raid  for  booty,  it  was  more  powerfully  con¬ 
ceived  and  better  disciplined  than  the  others 
had  been.  When  Sargon  I  had  marched  hither 
he  passed  through  lands  scantily  populated 
with  peoples,  with  whom  he  had  little  contact. 
There  was  no  possibility  of  making  an  em¬ 
pire  out  of  Babylonia  and  a  province  on  the 
far  western  sea,  with  vast  uncontrolled  terri¬ 
tories  between.  When  Tiglathpileser  I  came 
out  to  the  same  sea  he  had  left  great  terri¬ 
tories  and  populous  communities  between  him 
and  the  homeland,  and,  like  the  early  Baby¬ 
lonian,  there  could  be  no  hope  of  making  an 
empire  out  of  two  lands  so  widely  separated. 
But  Ashurnazirpal  had  measurably  changed  the 
situation.  He  did  not,  it  is  true,  actually  rule 


216  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

the  entire  territory  from  the  Lower  Zab  and 
its  overhanging  hills  to  the  Lebanon,  but  he 
had  broken  its  spirit,  and  was  received  as 
its  conqueror.  In  many  places  rule  was  exer¬ 
cised  by  governors,  both  native  and  Assyrian, 
whom  he  had  appointed.  In  yet  others  there 
were  towns  peopled  by  Assyrian  colonists, 
stored  with  Assyrian  provisions,  and  defended 
by  massive  walls  of  Assyrian  construction.  The 
situation  was  indeed  changed,  and  the  result 
of  this  invasion  might  well  be  different.  Ashur- 
nazirpal  knew  the  conditions  with  which  he 
was  confronted,  and  fully  appreciated  the  oppor¬ 
tunity  for  making  a  great  empire.  The  Mediter¬ 
ranean  was  even  then  the  basin  upon  which 
touched  the  greatest  empire  of  the  world;  and 
the  Egyptians  understood  the  value  of  their 
geographical  situation.  The  Phoenicians  were 
already  a  powerful  commercial  people.  The 
Hebrews  formed  an  important  center  of  in¬ 
fluence  in  Canaan.  What  relation  should 
Assyria  come  to  sustain  to  these  powers  of 
antiquity?  An  augury  of  the  answer  to  that 
question  came  as  Ashurnazirpal  halted  on  the 
Lebanon.  The  people  of  Tyre,  of  Sidon,  of 
Tripolis,1  and  of  Arvad  u which  lies  in  the 
midst  of  the  sea/’  sent  splendid  gifts,  a  fatal 
blunder,  for  it  was  a  confession  of  weakness, 

1  In  Ashurnazirpal’s  account  three  cities  are  mentioned:  Makhallat, 
Maiz,  and  Kaiz  ( Annals ,  col.  iii,  86).  Delitzsch  ( Paradies ,  p.  282) 
makes  it  probable  that  these  three  formed  Tripolis,  and  Sayce  appar¬ 
ently  agrees  ( Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series,  ii,  p.  172,  note  1). 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURNAZIRPAL 


217 


which  would  be  noted  and  remembered  by 
the  Assyrians.  It  was  a  recognition  of  the 
power  of  the  Assyrian  arms,  of  which  almost 
every  Assyrian  king  boasts  in  the  stereotyped 
phrase:  “By  the  might  of  the  terrible  arms;” 
and  the  Assyrians  would  bring  forth  yet  greater 
daring  as  they  remembered  that  the  com¬ 
mercial  rulers  of  the  west  feared  their  power 
too  greatly  to  test  it.  And,  worst  of  all,  it 
was  a  confession  to  the  world  that  these  western 
peoples  who  fronted  the  Mediterranean  cared 
more  for  the  profits  of  their  commerce  than 
for  freedom.  We  shall  see  very  shortly  the 
results  of  this  sending  of  gifts  to  the  Assyrian 
king.  Ashurnazirpal  had  achieved  his  present 
purpose  in  this  direction.  He  did  not  go  down 
to  Tyre  or  Sidon  to  look  upon  the  weaklings 
who  paid  tribute  without  seeing  his  arms,  but 
turned  northward  into  the  Amanus  mountains 
on  an  errand  of  peace.  Here  he  cut  cedar, 
cypress,  and  juniper  trees  and  sent  the  logs 
off  to  Assyria.  Somewhere  else  in  the  same 
district  he  cut  other  trees,  called  mekhru  (prob¬ 
ably  a  species  of  fir  or  pine)  trees,  which  seem 
to  have  been  numerous  enough  to  give  their 
name  to  the  country  in  which  they  were  found. 

So  ended,  in  the  peaceable  gathering  of 
building  materials,  a  remarkable  campaign. 
Ashurnazirpal  had  succeeded  brilliantly  where 
his  predecessors  had  failed.  But  as  we  look 
back  over  the  entire  campaign  we  can  discern 


218  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

significant  silence  concerning  one  western  people. 
There  is  no  allusion  to  Damascus  or  to  any 
of  its  tributary  states.  They  were  all  left 
undisturbed,  and  a  glance  at  the  map  reveals 
how  carefully  the  Assyrian  army  had  avoided 
even  their  outposts.  To  have  attacked  that 
solidly  intrenched  state  would  have  been  cer¬ 
tain  disaster,  and  Ashurnazirpal  was  wisely 
instructed  in  passing  it  by.  Years  must  elapse 
before  the  Assyrians  should  dare  attack  it. 

The  campaign  was  noteworthy  also  in  that 
there  had  been  almost  no  savagery,  no  butcher¬ 
ing  of  men,  scarcely  any  ruthless  destruction 
of  cities.  This  better  state  of  war  was  of 
course  due  to  no  change  of  method  on  the 
part  of  Ashurnazirpal,  but  simply  to  the 
almost  entire  absence  of  resistance.  The  former 
campaigns  had  terrified  the  world,  and  the 
fruits  of  severity  were  an  easy  conquest  and 
the  development  of  the  peaceful  art  of  build¬ 
ing.  The  burning  of  cities  and  the  slaughter 
of  men  were  resumed  in  867  in  a  small  cam¬ 
paign  through  the  lands  of  Kummukh,  Kirkhi, 
and  the  oft-plundered  country  about  Mount 
Masius.  At  the  city  of  Amedi  he  made  a 
pile  of  heads  before  the  city  gate,  and  im¬ 
paled  living  men  on  stakes  around  the  walls.1 
It  was  emphatically  a  campaign  of  tribute 
collecting,  and  the  only  matters  of  any  political 
consequence  were  the  appointment  of  an  As- 


1  Annals,  col.  iii,  lines  107,  108. 


219 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURNAZIRPAL 

Syrian  governor  over  the  land  of  Kirkhi  and 
the  carrying  of  about  three  thousand  captives 
into  Assyria.  Such  a  leavening  as  that  might 
influence  the  Assyrian  people. 

These  renewed  ravages  ended  the  wars  of 
Ashurnazirpal;  the  remainder  of  his  reign 
was  devoted  to  works  of  peace.  But  it  would 
be  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  campaigning  had 
occupied  his  entire  attention  during  his  reign, 
for  undoubtedly  the  two  chief  works  of  his 
reign  were  executed  partially  during  the  ver}r 
period  when  he  was  most  busy  with  tribute 
collecting.  These  works  were  the  rebuilding 
of  the  city  of  Calah  and  the  construction  of 
a  canal.  The  former  was  necessary  because 
the  city  which  Shalmaneser  I  had  built  had 
been  deserted  during  the  period  when  Asshur 
was  again  the  capital,  and  a  short  period  of 
desertion  always  meant  ruin  to  Assyrian  build¬ 
ings.  Only  the  outer  surface  of  its  thick  walls 
was  built  of  burnt  brick,  the  inner  filling  being 
composed  of  unburnt  brick  merely,  so  that 
a  trifling  leak  in  the  roof  transformed  this 
interior  into  a  mass  of  clay,  speedily  causing 
the  walls  to  spring.  Judging  from  the  hun¬ 
dreds  of  references  in  Assyrian  literature  to 
the  restoration  of  walls  and  buildings,  it  may 
justly  be  thought  that  the  Assyrians  were 
especially  bad  roof  builders.  Indeed,  their  ad¬ 
vance  in  constructive  skill  never  kept  pace 
with  their  progress  in  the  arts  of  decoration. 


220  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


It  is  this  anomaly  which  has  left  us  without 
any  standing  buildings  in  Assyria,  while  vast 
temples  still  remain  in  Egypt.  It  is,  of  course, 
to  be  observed  that  Assyrian  construction 
would  doubtless  have  shown  a  different  de¬ 
velopment  had  stone  been  abundant  as  a 
building  material.  As  an  offset  to  this,  how¬ 
ever,  it  must  be  remembered  that  brick  is  one 
of  the  most  durable  of  materials  when  properly 
baked  and  laid,  and  that  the  Assyrians  knew 
how  to  bake  properly  is  evidenced  by  their 
clay  books,  which  have  survived  fire  and 
breakage  and  wet  during  the  crash  and  ruin 
of  the  centuries.  Besides  the  general  recon¬ 
struction  of  Calah,  Ashurnazirpal  built  himself 
a  great  palace,  covering  a  space  one  hundred 
and  thirty-one  yards  in  length  and  one  hun¬ 
dred  and  nine  in  breadth,1  which  remained  a 
royal  residence  for  centuries.  Its  massive  ruins 
have  been  unearthed  at  Nimroud,  being  the 
northwestern  one  of  the  three  there  discovered. 
His  second  great  work  was  the  construction, 
or  reconstruction,  of  an  aqueduct  to  bring  an 
abundant  supply  of  water  to  the  city  from 
the  Upper  Zab.  The  river  bank  was  pierced 
near  the  modern  Negub,  and  the  water  first 
conveyed  through  a  rock  tunnel  and  then  by 
an  open  canal  to  the  great  terrace.  Its  course 
was  lined  with  palms,  with  various  fruit  trees, 

1  Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains,  i.  pp.  62,  ff.  See  picture  and 
plan  in  Rassam,  Asshur  and  the  Land  of  Nimrod,  pp.  222,  ff. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHIJRN AZTRPAL 


221 


and  with  vineyards,  and  well  was  it  named 
Puti-Khegalli — the  “bringer  of  fruitfulness/’1 
In  the  year  858  B.  C.  the  reign  of  Ashurnazir- 
pal  ended  in  peace.  He  had  wrought  great 
things  for  Assyrian  power  in  the  world,  and 
the  empire  as  he  left  it  was  greater  actually 
and  potentially  than  it  had  ever  been  before. 
Of  the  man  himself  the  world  can  have  no 
pleasant  memories.  No  king  like  him  in  fe¬ 
rocity  had  arisen  before  him,  and  in  Assyria  at 
least  he  was  followed  by  none  altogether  his 
equal.  One  searches  the  records  of  his  reign 
and  finds  seldom  anything  more  than  catalogues 
of  savage  and  relentless  deeds.  So  rarely  in¬ 
deed  does  a  work  of  mercy  or  peace  brighten 
the  record  that  it  is  a  relief  to  turn  the  page. 

1  Monolith  inscription,  i,  5-9,  Keilinschrift.,  Bibl.,  i,  pp.  118,  119. 
For  the  modern  remains  see  Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains ,  i,  pp. 
80,  81;  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  pp.  525-527. 


CHAPTER  V 


SHALMANESER  III  TO  ASHUR-NIRARI  II 

Shalmaneser  III  (858-824  B.  C.),  who 
succeeded  his  father,  Ashurnazirpal,  continued 
his  policy  without  a  break,  and  even  extended 
it.  We  are  even  better  instructed  concerning 
his  reign,  for  more  historical  material  has 
come  down  to  us  from  it.  The  most  impor¬ 
tant  of  his  inscriptions  is  a  beautiful  obelisk 
of  black  basalt.  The  upper  parts  of  the  four 
faces  contain  beautifully  carved  figures  of  vari¬ 
ous  animals  which  the  king  had  received  in 
tribute  and  as  gifts,  each  illustration  being 
accompanied  by  an  epigraph  explaining  its 
meaning.  The  lower  parts  bear  inscriptions 
recounting  in  chronological  order  the  cam¬ 
paigns  of  the  king.  There  are  no  less  than 
one  hundred  and  nine  lines  of  compact  writing 
upon  this  one  monument.* 1  This  story  of  his 
wars  is  supplemented  by  the  fine  monolith  of 
the  king,  containing  his  portrait  in  low  relief, 
covered  with  one  hundred  and  fifty-six  lines 

1  Black  Obelisk,  text,  published  in  Layard,  Inscriptions  in  the  Cunei¬ 
form  Characters,  87-98.  It  has  often  been  translated  in  whole  or  part. 
The  best  of  the  recent  translations  are  by  Winckler,  Keilinschrift.  Bihl., 

i,  pp.  128-151,  and  by  Scheil,  Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series,  iv,  pp. 
39,  sqq.,  the  latter  with  numerous  corrections  by  Sayce. 

222 


SHALMANESER  III 


223 


of  text.1  And  this  again,  in  its  turn,  is  supple¬ 
mented  by  fragmentary  inscriptions  upon  bronze 
plates  which  once  covered  massive  wooden 
doors  or  gates.2  From  these  three  main  sources 
of  information  we  are  able  to  follow  in  order 
all  the  chief  events  of  the  king’s  reign.  The 
accounts,  however,  are  less  picturesque  and 
full  of  life  than  those  of  his  predecessor.  Cam¬ 
paigns  are  often  dismissed  in  a  few  colorless 
words,  and  the  record  takes  on  the  nature 
of  a  catalogue  rather  than  of  a  history.  We 
shall  therefore  present  the  story  of  his  reign, 
not  in  its  chronological,  but  rather  in  its  log¬ 
ical  order,  following  the  circle  of  his  achieve¬ 
ments  from  country  to  country.  The  annalistic 
style  of  Ashurnazirpal  may  stand  as  the 
representative  of  this  reign,  with  the  differ¬ 
ence,  already  mentioned,  that  it  possesses  greater 
breadth  and  richer  color. 

For  twenty-six  years  Shalmaneser  led  every 
campaign  in  person — an  amazing  record.  His 
armies  were  then  sent  out  under  the  leader¬ 
ship  of  the  Tartan  Ashur-dayan.  Like  his 
father,  Shalmaneser  was  oppressed  by  the 

1  III  R.  7,  8,  translations  by  Craig,  Hebraica,  iii,  1887;  Peiser,  Keilin- 
schrift.  Bill.,  vol.  i,  pp.  150-175;  and  Scheil,  Records  of  the  Past,  New 
Series,  iv,  pp.  55,  sqq.  For  other  inscriptions  see  Mitteilungen  der 
Deutschen  Orient  Gesellschaft,  No.  32,  p.  26,  and  see  also  below,  p.  244. 

2  The  gate  inscriptions  were  secured  by  Hormuzd  Rassam  in  1877, 
the  natives  reporting  to  him  that  they  had  been  found  in  the  mounds 
of  Balawat.  They  have  been  published  and  translated  by  Pinches 
in  Transactions  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology,  vii,  pp.  83,  sqq., 
and  by  Amiaud  et  Scheil,  Inscriptions  de  Salrnanasar  I,  Paris,  1890, 
and  also  Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series,  iv,  pp.  74,  sqq. 


224  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


weight  of  his  own  army.  It  must  fight  or  die, 
and  when  there  was  no  excuse  for  operations 
of  defense  there  must  be  a  campaign  to  collect 
tribute,  and  when  that  was  not  needed  fresh 
conquests  must  be  attempted. 

From  his  father  he  also  inherited  the  old 
Aramaean  question,  which  was  to  consume 
much  of  his  energy  through  a  considerable 
part  of  his  reign.  We  have  seen  that  Ashurna- 
zirpal  broke  the  spirit  of  the  Aramaeans  in 
the  Mesopotamian  valley  and  compelled  them 
to  pay  tribute  regularly.  But,  though  this 
was  true,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  they 
would  try  his  successor’s  mettle  at  the  first 
opportunity.  Of  these  states  Bit-Adini  was 
still  the  most  powerful  as  well  as  the  most 
daring.  We  are  not  told  what  act  of  Akhuni, 
ruler  of  Bit-Adini,  led  to  an  outbreak  of  hos¬ 
tilities,  but  we  shall  probably  not  be  far  wrong 
if  we  ascribe  it  to  the  ever- vexing  tribute. 
Whatever  the  difficulty,  Shalmaneser  invaded 
the  country  in  859,  the  first  year  of  his  reign, 
leaving  Assyria  in  the  month  of  May,  and 
captured  some  of  its  cities,  but  apparently 
did  not  directly  attack  the  capital.  The  in¬ 
vasion  had  to  be  repeated  in  May,  858,  and 
again  in  July,  857,  and  in  both  years  there 
were  displays  of  savagery  after  the  fashion  of 
Ashurnazirpal.  Pyramids  of  heads  were  piled 
up  by  city  gates  and  the  torch  applied  to 
ruined  cities.  But  in  the  latter  year  the  oppo- 


SHALMANESER  III 


225 


sition  to  Assyrian  domination  was  hopelessly 
broken  down.  The  brave  little  land  was  annexed 
to  Assyria,  placed  under  Assyrian  government, 
and  colonists  from  Assyria  were  settled  in  it,1 
and  even  the  old  Aramaic  names  of  its  cities 
were  changed  into  long  and  ill-sounding  As¬ 
syrian,  till  we  wonder,  for  example,  whether 
the  inhabitants  of  Pitru,  ever  learned  to  call 
their  city  Ana-Asshur-uter-asbat. 

Such  success  was  likely  to  lead  soon  to  an 
attack  upon  the  larger  and  richer  Aramaean 
settlements  farther  west.  The  states  with 
which  he  would  have  to  deal  at  first  were 
Hamath,  Damascus,  and  Khatin,  the  small  but 
fertile  and  powerful  state  between  the  Afrin 
and  the  Orontes,  which  had  given  much  trouble 
to  his  father.  Khatin  was  not  so  powerful  as 
the  two,  but  could  not  be  left  out  of  account 
in  a  western  invasion.  Hamath  was  the  center 
of  Aramaean  influence  in  northern  Syria,  and 
under  the  leadership  of  Irkhulina  was  no  mean 
antagonist.  But  by  far  the  most  powerful 
and  important  of  the  three  states  was  Damas¬ 
cus,  whose  king  at  this  time  was  Bir-idri  (Ben- 
Hadad  II).  If  an  enduring  union  could  be 
formed  between  these  two  states  and  allies 
secured  in  Phoenicia  and  in  Israel,  the  peoples 
of  the  west  might  defy  even  the  disciplined 
and  victorious  armies  of  Assyria.  But  the 

i  Obelisk,  lines  26-32,  32-35,  35-45.  Monolith  i,  12-29;  ii,  1-13, 
13-20,  30-35. 


226  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


ambition  of  Damascus  to  be  actual  head  over 
all  the  western  territory  and  mutual  jealousies 
among  the  other  states  prevented  any  real 
union  against  the  common  oppressor.  How¬ 
ever,  the  threatened  advance  of  Assyria  was 
sufficient  to  bury  for  a  time  at  least  their 
differences  and  a  confederation  for  mutual  de¬ 
fense  was  formed  for  a  year,  during  which 
time  it  was  a  powerful  factor  in  the  history 
of  western  Asia. 

Shalmaneser  III  was  ready  for  the  attempt 
on  the  west  in  854.  The  campaign  of  that 
year  is  of  such  great  importance  that  it  will 
be  well  to  set  it  down  in  the  words  of  the  Mon¬ 
olith  inscription,  with  such  further  comment 
as  may  be  necessary  to  make  its  meaning 
clear : 

“In  the  eponym  year  of  Daian-Ashur,  in 
the  month  of  Airu,  on  the  fourteenth  day, 
from  Nineveh  I  departed;  I  crossed  the  Tigris; 
to  the  cities  of  Giammu  on  the  Balikh  I  ap¬ 
proached.  The  fearfulness  of  my  lordship  (and) 
the  splendor  of  my  powerful  arms  they  feared, 
and  with  their  own  arms  they  slew  Giammu, 
their  lord.  Kitlala  and  Til-sha-mar-akhi  I 
entered.  My  gods  I  brought  into  his  temples, 
I  made  a  feast  in  his  palaces.  I  opened  his 
treasury  and  found  his  riches;  his  goods  and 
his  possessions  I  carried  away;  to  my  city 
Asshur  I  brought  (them).  From  Kitlala  I 
departed ;  to  Kar-Shulman-asharid  I  approached. 


Monolith  of  Shalmaneser  III,  king  of  Assyria 
(859-825  B.  C.),  with  accounts  of  his  campaigns. 

[From  Carl  Bezold,  Ninive  und  Babylon,  3te 
Auflage,  Leipzig,  1909.] 


,  y  Oi<  IJABYLONI  ArASO  ASS'.  KIA 

r 4.  ;  other  states  pro  ven  d  any  real 

union  aga  *  the  common  oppressor.  How- 

* 

-'•uf ■  ■el “lit  to  bury  lor  a  time  at-  least  tueii 

ferivse  was  formed  for  a  year,  during  which 
time  it  was  a  powerful  factor  in  the  history 
of  western  Asia. 

Shalmaneser  III  was  ready  lor  _ 

oi§h^  )&  8ni>[  $£ 

.^iai*qcaaf>  aid  la.^aupaw  4lxw  ,(.  J  a  g^o-..c ,6) 
etB  uwhtoA  hm  mmfh  vbioseE  tot),  ittoilj 

r  y~\.  /\  /~\.  *  -  *  *T  a  m-v  b  r 

olith  inscription/  > 
as  may  be  nece 
clear: 

“I  n  the  epo  w 
the  month  of 
f  rom  Ninew  h  :  « 
to  the  cities  of  < 
preached.  The  fe& 


f.QOQt  ,ghqKl  mgtoj/ 

,tiing 


m 


1 1,-'-  s';  )](■!’•  K’i  ■  :*  -  ’ 


•  i 'i . a  ! iay , 

)  crossed  the  Tigris; 
on  the  Balikh  I  ap- 
ny  lordship  (and) 
owerful  arms  they  feared, 

v  i  *  '  U  v  r  v  f  ^  £ 

sad  w  ith  their  or,  n  •* rms  they  slew  Giamrrm, 
tu  ir  lord.  ?  mi  and  Til-shamiar-akhi  I 
entered,  Aiv’--  ■  1.  brought  into  his  temples, 

m  i do  v.  palaces.  I  opened  Ids 

treasury  r  '  Per;  >  ce*  riches;  his  goods  and 
yis  posse-- - ‘ ■  >ns  ied  away;  to  ny  c*ty 

A#  -  nr  I  Pro:  hern).  From  Kit! ala  I 

rtilffikn-asharid  I  approached; 


i  \  > 


4  i 


Ci 


1 1 — 22<> 


SHALMANESER  III 


227 


In  boats  of  sheepskin  I  crossed  the  Euphrates 
for  the  second  time  in  its  flood.  The  tribute 
of  the  kings  of  that  side  of  the  Euphrates,  of 
Sangar  of  Carchemish,  of  Kundashpi  of  Kum- 
mukh,  of  Arame,  of  Bit  Gusi;  of  Lalli,  the 
Melidsean;  of  Khaiani,  of  Bit  Gabbar;  of 
Kalparuda,  the  Khatinian;  of  Kalparuda,  the 
Gurgumsean;  silver,  gold,-  lead,  copper  (and) 
copper  vessels,  in  the  city  of  Asshur-utir-asbat, 
on  that  side  of  the  Euphrates,  which  (is)  on 
the  river  Sagur,  which  (city)  the  Hittites  call 
Pitru,  I  received.  From  the  Euphrates  I 
departed,  to  Khalman  (that  is,  Aleppo)  I 
approached.  They  feared  my  battle  (and) 
embraced  my  feet.  Silver  and  gold  I  received 
as  their  tribute.  I  offered  sacrifices  before 
Adad,  the  god  of  Khalman.  From  Khalman 
I  departed;  two  cities  of  Irkulini,  the  Hamath- 
ite,  I  approached.  Adennu,  Parga,  Argana,  his 
royal  city,  I  captured;  his  booty,  goods,  the 
possessions  of  his  palaces  I  brought  out  (and) 
set  fire  to  his  palaces.  From  Argana  I  departed, 
to  Qarqar  I  approached;  Qarqar,  his  royal 
city,  I  plundered,  destroyed;  burned  with  fire. 
One  thousand  two  hundred  chariots,  1,200 
horsemen,  20,000  men  of  Biri-dri  (that  is, 
Ben-Hadad  II)  of  Damascus;  700  chariots,  700 
saddle  horses,  10,000  men  of  Irkhuleni,  the 
Hamathite;  2,000  chariots,  10,000  men  of  Ahab, 
the  Israelite;  500  men  of  the  Quans;1  1,000 


1  Que  is  that  part  of  Cilicia  between  the  Amanus  and  the  mountains 


228  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


men  of  the  Musreans;  10  chariots,  10,000  men 
of  the  Irkanatians;  200  men  of  Matinu-Baal, 
the  Arvadite;  200  men  of  the  Usanatians;  30 
chariots,  10,000  of  Adunu-Baal,  the  Shianian; 
1,000  camels  of  Gindibu,  the  Arabian;  .  .  . 
1,000  men  of  Baasha,  son  of  Rukhubi,  the 
Ammonite — these  twelve* 1  kings  he  took  to  his 
assistance;  to  make  battle  and  war  against 
me  they  came.  With  the  exalted  power  which 
Ashur,  the  lord,  gave  me,  with  the  powerful 
arms  which  Nergal,  who  goes  before  me,  had 
granted  me,  I  fought  with  them,  from  Qarqar 
to  Gilzan  I  accomplished  their  defeat.  Four¬ 
teen  thousand  of  their  warriors  I  slew  with 
arms;  like  Adad,  I  rained  a  deluge  upon  them, 
I  strewed  hither  and  yon  their  bodies.  I  filled 
the  plain.  [I  destroyed]  their  troops  with 
arms.  I  made  their  blood  flow  over  the  ...  of 
the  field.  The  field  was  too  small  to  cast 
dowm  their  bodies,  the  broad  field  was  not 
sufficient  to  bury  them.  With  their  bodies  I 
dammed  the  Orontes,  as  with  a  dam  (?).  In 
that  battle  I  took  from  them  their  chariots, 
horsemen,  horses,  their  teams.2 

of  the  Ketis  (see  Schrader,  Keilinschriften  und  Geschichtsforschung, 
pp.  238-242).  Winckler’s  conjecture  ( Alttestament  U  liter  suchungen, 
pp.  168,  ff.),  which  would  place  it  in  1  Kings  x,  28,  is  almost  certainly 
correct.  See  further  Benzinger  and  Kittel  on  the  passage. 

1  The  total  of  these  numbers  is  eleven,  and  not  twelve,  and  the  total 
of  all  arms  amounts  to  3,940  chariots,  1,900  horsemen,  62,900  infantry, 
and  1,000  chariots. 

2  Monolith  inscription  ii,  lines  78-102.  The  parallel  passage  in  the 
Obelisk  inscription  (lines  54-66)  is  brief  and  colorless.  See  Rogers, 
“Assyria’s  First  Contact  with  Israel,”  Methodist  Review ,  March-April* 


SHALMANESER  III 


229 


By  means  of  this  detailed  and  explicit  ac¬ 
count  it  is  easy  to  follow  the  king's  move¬ 
ments  and  understand  the  campaign.  Shal¬ 
maneser  leaves  Nineveh  and  makes  straight 
across  the  valley  for  the  Balikh.  He  is  here 
received  with  open  arms,  and  secures  great 
gifts.  His  next  important  stop  is  at  Pethor, 
beyond  the  Euphrates,  where  more  tribute, 
brought  long  distances,  even  from  the  land 
of  Kummukh,  is  received.  From  Pethor  to 
Aleppo  the  distance  was  short  and  the  issue 
was  the  same — Aleppo  surrendered  without  a 
blow.  It  is  interesting  to  mark  that  Shal¬ 
maneser  localizes  in  Aleppo  the  worship  of 
the  god  Adad,  to  whom  he  paid  worship.  If 
this  statement  is  correct,  we  may  find  in  it 
a  proof  of  early  intercourse  between  Aleppo 
and  Assyria,  for  we  have  long  since  found 
Adad  worshiped  in  Assyria.  This  was  the 
end  of  the  unopposed  royal  progress.  As  soon 
as  he  crossed  into  the  territory  of  the  little 
kingdom  of  Hamath  he  was  opposed.  Three 
cities  were,  however,  taken  and  left  behind  in 
ruins.  Shalmaneser  III  then  advanced  to 
Qarqar,* 1  a  city  located  near  the  Orontes. 
Here  he  was  met  by  the  allied  army  collected 
to  defend  the  west  against  Assyria.  Its  corn- 

1895,  pp.  207-222,  and  compare  the  translations  of  all  the  parallel 
passages  in  Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels,  pp.  294,  ff. 

1  Its  exact  location  is  unknown.  Maspero  {The  Passing  of  the  Em¬ 
pires,  p.  70,  note  4)  suggests  that  it  “corresponds  to  the  present  Kalaat- 
el-Mudiq,  the  ancient  Apamsea  of  Lebanon.” 


230  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

position  throws  light  on  the  relative  power  of 
the  states  in  Syria  and  Palestine  and  deserves 
attention.  The  main  body  of  the  army  of 
defense  was  contributed  by  Hamath,  Damas¬ 
cus,  and  Israel.  These  three  states  contributed 
much  more  than  half  of  the  entire  army  and 
nearly  all  of  the  most  powerful  part  of  it,  the 
chariots  and  horsemen.  From  the  north  there 
came  men  from  Que  (eastern  Cilicia)  and 
Musri.  From  the  west  came  detachments  con¬ 
tributed  by  the  northern  Phoenician  cities 
which  were  unwilling  or  unable  to  send  enor¬ 
mous  gifts  to  buy  off  the  conqueror,  as  Tyre 
and  Sidon  had  done,  but  were  willing  to  strike 
a  blow  for  independence.  The  last  section 
was  made  up  of  Ammonites  and  Arabs.  This 
was  a  formidable  array,  and  the  issue  of  the 
battle  fought  at  Qarqar  might  well  be  doubted. 
The  Assyrians  had,  of  course,  a  well-seasoned 
army  to  oppose  a  crowd  of  raw  levies;  but 
the  latter  had  the  great  advantage  of  a  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  country  as  well  as  the  enthusiasm 
of  the  fight  for  home  and  native  land.  Of 
course,  the  records  of  Shalmaneser  claim  a 
great  victory.  In  the  Monolith  inscription1  the 
allies  killed  are  set  down  at  14,000,  in  another 
inscription  the  number  given  is  20, 500, 2  while 
in  a  third  it  rises  to  25, 000, 3  and  in  a  fourth 

1  Col.  ii,  lines  97  and  98. 

2  Obelisk,  lines  65,  66. 

3  Bull  inscription,  No.  1,  line  18.  On  these  discrepancies  see  Schrader, 
Keilinschriflen  und  Geschichtsforschung,  p.  47. 


SHALMANESER  III  231 

to  29,000. 1  The  evident  uncertainty  in  the 
figures  makes  us  doubt  somewhat  the  clearness 
of  the  entire  result.  There  is,  as  usual,  no 
mention  of  Assyrian  losses,  but  they  must 
have  been  severe.  The  claim  of  a  great  vic¬ 
tory  is  almost  certainly  false.  A  victory  for 
the  Assyrians  it  probably  was,  for  the  allies 
were  plainly  defeated  and  their  union  for  de¬ 
fense  broken  up;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
Assyrians  did  not  attempt  to  follow  up  the 
victory  they  claimed,  and  no  word  is  spoken 
of  tribute  or  plunder  or  of  any  extension  of 
Assyrian  territory.2  The  alliance  had  saved 
the  fair  land  of  Hamath  for  a  time  and  had 
postponed  the  day  when  Israel  should  be 
conquered  and  carried  into  captivity.  It  is 
a  sore  pity  that  despite  the  dread  of  the  Assyr¬ 
ians,  voiced  so  frequently  by  the  Hebrews, 
and  evidently  felt  by  the  other  allies,  mutual 
jealousy  should  have  prevented  the  continuance 
of  an  alliance  which  promised  to  save  the 
shores  of  the  Mediterranean  for  Hebrew  and 
Aramaean  civilization. 

Shalmaneser  was  busied  elsewhere,  as  we 
shall  shortly  see,  during  the  years  immediately 
following,  and  it  was  not  until  849  that  he 
was  able  to  make  another  assault  on  the  west. 
The  point  of  attack  was  again  the  land  of 


1  The  Berlin  Inscription,  line  16,  translated  in  Rogers,  Cuneiform 
Parallels,  pp.  298,  299. 

2  The  abrupt  ending  of  the  Monolith  narrative  is  significant. 


282  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


Hamath,  and  again  Bir-idri  of  Damascus  and 
Irkhuleni  of  Hamath  had  the  leadership  over 
the  twelve  allies.  This  time  Shalmaneser  claims 
to  have  slain  ten  thousand* 1  of  his  enemies, 
but  he  mentions  no  tribute  and  no  new  terri¬ 
tory.  We  may  therefore  be  almost  certain 
that  the  victory  was  rather  a  defeat,  and 
that  he  was  really  compelled  to  withdraw.  In 
846  Shalmaneser  once  more  determined  to 
attack  the  foe  which  had  done  such  wonderful 
work  in  opposing  the  hitherto  invincible  As¬ 
syrian  arms.  In  this  campaign  he  did  not 
trust  merely  to  his  usual  standing  army,  but 
levied  contingents  from  the  land  of  Assyria 
and  with  an  enormous  force,  said  by  him  to 
number  120,000  men,  he  set  out  for  Hamath. 
Again  he  was  opposed  by  Ben-Hadad  II  and 
his  allies,  and  again  he  “accomplished  their 
defeat.”2  But,  as  in  the  previous  campaigns 
and  for  the  same  reasons,  we  are  compelled 
to  assert  that  the  Aramaeans  had  given  full 
proof  of  their  prowess  by  resisting  the  im¬ 
mense  Assyrian  army.  The  next  attempt  upon 
the  west  was  made  in  842.  In  this  year  Shal¬ 
maneser  found  a  very  different  situation.  Ben- 
Hadad  II,  who  had  ruled  with  a  rod  of  iron 
and  held  the  neighboring  peoples  in  terror, 
was  now  dead,3  and  the  cruel,  but  weak  Hazael 


1  The  Bull  inscription,  line  94. 

*  Obelisk  inscription,  lines  91,  92. 

1  2  Kings  viii,  7-15. 


SHALMANESER  III 


233 


reigned  in  Damascus.  Ahab,  who  was  a  man 
of  real  courage  and  of  great  resources,  was 
dead,  as  was  Joram  (852-842),  his  successor; 
and  Jehu,  the  usurper,  was  now  king  in  Sa¬ 
maria.  He  seems  to  have  been  a  natural 
coward  and  did  not  dare  to  fight  the  terrible 
Assyrians.  The  other  states  which  had  united 
in  defense  under  Ben-Hadad  II  were  hope¬ 
lessly  discordant,  each  hoping  to  throw  off  the 
quasi-suzerainty  of  Damascus.  The  people  of 
Tyre  and  Sidon  had  again  returned  to  their 
commerce  and  were  ready  to  send  gifts  to 
Shalmaneser  that  they  might  not  be  disturbed 
at  the  gates  of  the  seas.  Jehu  sent  costly 
tribute,  apparently  in  the  mad  hope  of  gaining 
Assyrian  aid  against  the  people  of  Damascus, 
whom  he  hated  and  feared,  not  reckoning 
that  the  Assyrians  would  seek  this  tribute  year 
after  year  until  the  land  should  be  wasted. 
This  act  of  Jehu  gave  the  Assyrians  their  first 
hold  on  Israel,  and  the  consequences  were  far- 
reaching  and  disastrous.  Hazael,  noble  in 
comparison  with  all  the  former  allies  of  Da¬ 
mascus,  determined  to  resist  Shalmaneser  alone. 
In  Saniru,  or  Hermon,1  he  fortified  himself 
and  awaited  the  Assyrian  onslaught.  Six  thou¬ 
sand  of  his  soldiers  were  killed  in  battle,  while 
one  thousand  one  hundred  and  twenty-one  of 
his  chariots  and  four  hundred  and  seventy 

1  Deut.  iii,  9,  comp.  Driver  on  the  passage,  and  Sayce,  Records  of 
the  Past,  New  Series,  vi,  p.  41. 


234  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


horses  with  his  camp  equipage  were  taken. 
Hazael  fled  to  Damascus  and  was  pursued  and 
besieged  by  the  Assyrians.  But,  powerful 
though  he  was,  Shalmaneser  was  not  able  to 
take  Damascus,  and  had  to  content  himself 
with  a  thoroughly  characteristic  conclusion  of 
the  campaign.  He  cut  down  the  trees  about 
the  city,  and  then  marching  southward,  en¬ 
tered  the  Hauran,  where  he  wasted  and  burned 
the  cities.1  So  ended  another  assault  on  the 
much-coveted  west,  and  it  was  still  not  con¬ 
quered.  No  such  series  of  rebuffs  had  ever 
been  received  by  Tiglathpileser  or  by  Ashur- 
nazirpal,  but  Shalmaneser  was  not  deterred 
from  another  and  last  attempt.  In  839  he 
crossed  the  Euphrates  for  the  twenty-first 
time  and  marched  against  the  cities  of 
Hazael.  He  claims  to  have  captured  four 
of  them,  but  there  is  no  mention  of  booty, 
and  no  word  of  any  impression  upon  Damas¬ 
cus.2 

Shalmaneser  had  led  six  campaigns  against 
the  west  with  no  result  beyond  a  certain  amount 
of  plunder.  There  was  absolutely  no  recog¬ 
nition  of  the  supremacy  of  Assyria.  There 
was  little  glory  for  the  Assyrian  arms.  There 
was  no  greater  freedom  achieved  for  Assyrian 
commerce.  And  yet  some  progress  had  been 


1  Obelisk,  lines  97-99  and  Annalistic  Fragment,  III  R.  5,  No.  6, 
40-65.  See  translations  by  Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels,  pp.  303,  304. 

*  Obelisk,  lines  102-104. 


SHALMANESER  ITI 


235 


made  toward  the  great  Assyrian  ambition.  The 
western  states  had  felt  in  some  measure  the 
strength  of  Assyria,  those  certainly  who  sent 
gifts  rather  than  fight  had  shown  their  dread; 
while  the  smoking  ruins  in  the  Hauran  were 
a  silent  object  lesson  of  what  might  soon  hap¬ 
pen  to  the  other  western  powers  which  had 
hitherto  resisted  so  gallantly.  The  Assyrian 
was  beating  against  the  bars  set  up  against 
his  progress,  and  the  outcome  was  hardly,  if 
at  all,  doubtful. 

Besides  his  difficulties  in  the  west  Shal¬ 
maneser  had  no  lack  of  trouble  with  the  far 
north.  As  Damascus  had  a  certain  prepon¬ 
derance  among  the  western  states,  so  had 
Urartu  (the  land  of  Van  or  Chaldia)  among 
the  northern  states.  There  is  some  reason 
for  believing  that  at  this  time,  as  was  true 
later  on,  Urartu  may  have  tried  to  exercise 
some  sort  of  sovereignty  over  the  land  of 
Nairi.  This  much,  at  least,  is  certain,  that 
the  people  of  Urartu  were  the  mainspring  of 
much  of  the  rebellion  among  the  smaller  states 
in  the  north  and  west. 

The  long  series  of  Assyrian  assaults  on 
Urartu  had  begun  in  the  reign  of  Tiglath- 
pileser  I,  who  had  crossed  over  the  Arsanias 
and  entered  the  country.  Ashurnazirpal,  also, 
had  marched  through  the  southern  portion  of 
the  district,  but  had  made  no  attempt  to 
annex  it  to  Assyria.  In  the  very  beginning 


236  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

of  his  reign ,  860  B.  C.,1  Shalmaneser  made  the 
first  move  which  led  to  this  series  of  cam¬ 
paigns.  He  entered  the  land  of  Nairi  and 
took  the  capital  city  of  Khurbushkia,  on  Lake 
Urumiyeh,  together  with  one  hundred  other 
towns  which  belonged  to  the  same  country. 
These  were  all  destroyed  by  fire.  The  king 
of  Nairi  was  then  pursued  into  the  mountains 
and  the  land  of  Urartu  (Chaldia)  invaded. 
At  this  time  Urartu  was  ruled  by  Arame, 
the  successor  of  Lutipris  and  Sarduris,  the 
first  kings  of  this  new  kingdom.  He  seems 
to  have  been  a  man  of  courage  and  adroitness. 
His  stronghold  of  Sugunia  was  taken  and  plun¬ 
dered.  Shalmaneser  did  not  push  on  into  the 
country,  but  withdrew  southward  by  way  of 
Lake  Van,  contented  with  his  booty  or  too  pru¬ 
dent  to  risk  more.  He  had,  however,  marched 
nearly  a  thousand  miles  and  had  given  fresh 
proof  of  the  mobility  of  an  Assyrian  army, 
which  could  cover  a  distance  so  great,  living 
upon  the  country,  and  moving  far  from  any 
sustaining  base.  He  made  no  more  attempts 
on  Urartu  until  857, 2  when  his  campaigning 
carried  him  westward  and  northward  to  Pethor 
and  thence  through  Anzitene,  which  was  com¬ 
pletely  laid  waste,  and  over  the  Arsanias  into 
Urartu.  On  this  expedition  the  country  of 

1  The  date  is  certain.  It  is  correctly  given  as  860  by  Tiele,  Geschichte, 
i,  p.  187,  but  erroneously  as  858  by  Scheil,  Records  of  the  Past,  New 
Series,  iv,  p.  56,  note  3. 

2  Incorrectly  given  as  856  by  Scheil,  ibid.,  vol.  iv,  p.  63,  note  1. 


SHALMANESER  ITT 


2.37 


Daiaeni,  along  the  river  Arsanias,  was  first 
conquered  and  apparently  without  much  oppo¬ 
sition.  The  way  was  now  open  to  the  capital 
city,  Arzashku.  Arame,  the  king  of  Urartu, 
fled  further  inland  and  abandoned  his  capital 
to  the  Assyrians,  who  wasted  it  as  of  old,  and 
left  it  a  heap  of  ruins  while  they  pursued  the 
fleeing  king.  He  was  overtaken,  and  thirty- 
four  hundred  of  his  troops  killed,  though 
Arame  himself  made  good  his  escape.  Laden 
with  heavy  spoil,  Shalmaneser  returned  south¬ 
ward,  and,  in  his  own  picturesque  phrase, 
trampled  on  the  country  like  a  wild  bull. 
Pyramids  of  heads  were  piled  up  at  the  ruined 
city  gates  and  men  were  impaled  on  stakes. 
On  the  mountains  an  inscription,  with  a  great 
image  of  the  conqueror,  was  set  up.  The  de¬ 
feat  of  Arame  seems  to  have  brought  his  dynasty 
to  an  end,  for  immediately  afterward  we  find 
Sarduris  II,  son  of  Lutipris,  building  a  citadel 
at  Van  and  founding  a  new  kingdom.  Shal¬ 
maneser  returned  to  Assyria  by  way  of  Arbela. 
He  had  therefore  completed  a  half  circle  in 
the  north,  passing  from  west  to  east,  but  had 
accomplished  little  more  than  the  collection  of 
tribute.1 

In  the  tenth  year  of  his  reign  (850  B.  C.) 
Shalmaneser  III  again  invaded  Urartu,  this 
time  entering  the  country  from  the  city  of 
Carchemish.  The  only  achievement  of  the 


1  Obelisk,  lines  35-45;  Monolith,  ii,  30-66. 


238  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


expedition  was  the  taking  of  the  fortified  city 
of  Arne  and  the  ravaging  of  the  surrounding 
country;1  no  enduring  results  were  effected. 
More  might,  perhaps,  have  been  attempted, 
but  the  king  was  forced  to  go  into  the  west 
to  meet  the  people  of  Damascus,  as  narrated 
above.  Shalmaneser  never  again  invaded  Urartu 
in  person.  In  the  year  833  he  sent  an  army 
against  it  under  the  leadership  of  his  Tartan 
Daian-Ashur.  In  the  seventeen  years  which 
had  elapsed  since  the  last  expedition  the  people 
of  Urartu  had  been  busy.  The  kingdom  of 
Siduri  (Sarduris  I)  had  waxed  strong  enough 
to  conquer  the  territories  of  Sukhme  and 
Daiaeni,  which  for  a  time  had  seemed  to  be¬ 
long  to  Assyria  after  having  been  so  thoroughly 
conquered  by  Shalmaneser  II.  The  account 
of  the  campaign  ends  in  the  vain  boast  of 
having  filled  the  plain  with  the  bodies  of  his 
warriors.2  The  sequel,  however,  shows  that 
this  campaign  and  another  similar  one  in  829, 
under  the  same  leadership,  against  Sarduris  II, 
had  not  really  conquered  the  land  of  Urartu.3 
Instead  of  growing  weaker  it  continued  to 
grow  stronger,  and  we  shall  often  meet  with 
displays  of  its  power  in  the  later  Assyrian  his¬ 
tory.  When  the  series  of  campaigns  against 
the  north  was  finally  ended  for  this  reign  it 


1  Obelisk,  lines  85-87. 

2  Obelisk,  lines  141-146. 

8  Obelisk,  lines  174-190. 


SHALMANESER  III 


239 


could  only  be  said  that  in  the  north  and  in 
the  west  the  Assyrian  arms  had  made  little 
real  progress. 

In  the  east  also  Shalmaneser  failed  to  ex¬ 
tend  the  boundaries  of  his  kingdom.  His 
efforts  in  this  quarter  began  in  859,  when  he 
made  a  short  expedition  into  the  land  of  Namri,1 
which  lay  on  the  southwestern  border  of  Media 
below  the  Lower  Zab  River.  Not  until  844 
was  the  land  again  disturbed  by  invasion. 
At  this  time  it  was  under  the  rule  of  a  prince, 
Marduk-shum-udammiq,  whose  name  points  to 
Babylonian  origin.  He  was  driven  from  the 
country,  and  a  prince  from  the  country  dis¬ 
trict  of  Bit-Khamban,  with  the  title  Yanzu,2 
was  put  in  his  place.3  This  move  was  not 
very  successful,  for  the  new  prince  rebelled 
eight  years  later  and  refused  the  annual  tribute. 
In  836  Shalmaneser  crossed  the  Lower  Zab 
and  again  invaded  Namri.  The  yanzu  fled 
for  his  life  to  the  mountains,  and  his  country 
was  laid  waste.  Shalmaneser,  emboldened  by 
this  small  success,  then  marched  farther  north 
into  the  territory  of  Parsua,  where  he  received 
tribute,  and  then,  turning  eastward,  -entered 
the  land  of  Media,  where  several  cities  were 
plundered  and  laid  waste.  There  seems  to 


1  Obelisk,  line  9. 

2  Yanzu  is  used  in  the  Assyrian  texts  as  a  proper  name,  but  Delitzsch 
( Die  Sprache  der  Kossder,  pp.  25,  29-38)  has  shown  that  it  is  the  title 
of  kings  in  the  Kosssean  dialects. 

8  Obelisk,  lines  93-97. 


240  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


have  been  no  attempt  made  to  set  up  any¬ 
thing  like  Assyrian  rule  over  any  portion  of 
Media,  but  only  to  secure  tribute.  On  the 
return  by  way  of  the  south,  near  the  modern 
Holwan,  the  yanzu  was  taken  prisoner  and 
carried  to  Assyria.1  But  the  efforts  of  Shal¬ 
maneser  to  control  in  the  east,  and  especially 
the  northeast,  did  not  end  here.  The  moun¬ 
tains  to  the  northeast  of  Assyria  had  been  a 
thorn  in  the  side  of  many  an  Assyrian  king. 
We  have  already  seen  how  Shalmaneser  at 
the  very  beginning  of  his  reign  ravaged  and 
plundered  in  Khubushkia,  on  Lake  Urumiyeh, 
farther  north  than  the  land  of  Namri.  In 
830  the  king  himself  remained  in  Calah,  send¬ 
ing  an  expedition  to  receive  the  tribute  from 
the  land  of  Khubushkia.  It  was  promptly 
paid,  and  Daian-Ashur,  who  was  in  command, 
led  his  troops  northward  into  the  land  of  Alan,2 
which  was  wasted  and  burned  in  the  usual 
fashion.  Returning  then  by  the  southern  shore 
of  Lake  Urumiyeh,  several  smaller  states  were 
plundered,  and  finally  tribute  was  collected 
again  in  Parsua.3  In  the  next  year  (829) 
another  campaign  was  directed  against  Khu¬ 
bushkia  to  enforce  the  collection  of  tribute,  and 
thence  the  army  marched  northward  through 

1  Obelisk,  lines  110-126. 

2  It  is  called  Minni  in  Jer.  li,  27.  See  especially  Sayce,  Journal  of 
the  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  New  Series,  xiv,  pp.  388-400,  and  Belck, 
“ Das  Reich  der  Mannoeer,"  in  the  Verhandlungen  der  Berl.  anthropolog. 
Gesellschaft,  1896,  p.  480. 

3  Obelisk,  lines  159-174. 


Stela  of  Shalmaneser  III,  king  of  Assyria  (859- 
825  B.  C.),  carved  in  the  native  rock  on  the  bank  of 
the  Dog  River  (Nahr  el-Kelb,  the  Lykos  of  the 
Greeks),  north  of  Beirut.  On  the  right  of  the  picture 
is  shown  the  large  stela  of  Rameses  II,  king  of 
Egypt  (1292-1225  B.  C.),  whose  example  the  Assy¬ 
rian  king  followed  in  setting  up  this  memorial. 

[From  Carl  Bezold,  Ninive  und  Babylon,  3te 
Auflage,  Leipzig,  1909.] 


' 


.  £<Cb  V  v 


Odia 


relm 


Ih-Us 


\x~ <n  no  attempt  made  to  set  up  any¬ 
thing  :;k<  Assy  rian  rule  over  any  portion  of 
but  only  to  secure  tribute.  On  the 
n  by  way  of  the  south,  n  *ar  the  modern 
v.u  the  yanzu  was  taken  prisoner  and 
carried  to  Assyria.1  But  the  efforts  of  Shal- 
manesc  *  to  control  in  the  east,  and  especially 
. 

tains  to  the  northeast  of  Assyria  had  been  a 

thorn  in .  the .  side  of  n r_ 2 j  , i  kin^. 
„-Go8)  10  and  .Ill  -losoiusmujdS  to  « 

/Intsd  9ti t  90i  ovit-ea  odt  as  psyiBO  XQ  .3  oS8 

thoX ;  V. y  *  m.  -Hit/  ■  t#|9d“9rii 

•y.'oioirf  orfJ  lo  tfla'n  oili  hO  .iini'.-a  To 

IVrtfiL 


ZaOL\.  v711  J  OQOii  n  K\*  '  /  \iO 

.Ishomem  aid  i  qjj  smite*  m  ba  wolf  of  Hah 


led  hi;  o 

;  ;  )  •  i  :  ' 

which  wj 

as  s;  h 

fashion. 

R(  *  -  H  '■  ■ !. ;  ‘ 

4  >limdere< 

again  in 

Parsuai 

another 

camp&i  a 

bushkia  1 

jO  enforce 

t  *  ence 

e  n ! . 

• 

n .  n-.» 

•  >  M  ’tr!  ‘  iT 

in 


^isqfed 

n  -i  <*S  Manx 

he  usual 
b  southern  shore 

several  smaller  states: were 
^ k. }  :.e  ’-vas  collected 
n  the  next-  year  (829) 
directed  against  Khu- 


,  ,i7.  See  especially  Saye,  -Journal  ■■>? 

v  ties,  xiv,  pp.  3tt>  -400,  arc!  1\p[<  lc, 


1 1 — 240 


SHALMANESER  III 


241 


Musair  and  Urartu,  passing  around  the  northern 
end  of  Lake  Urumiyeh.  Returning  southward, 
Parsua  was  again  harried  and  the  unfortunate 
land  of  Namri  invaded.  The  inhabitants  fled 
to  the  mountains,  leaving  all  behind  them. 
In  a  manner  entirely  worthy  of  his  royal  master, 
the  Tartan  laid  waste  and  burned  two  hun¬ 
dred  and  fifty  villages  before  he  came  back 
by  way  of  Hoi  wan  into  Assyrian  territory.1 
It  is  not  too  much  to  sa}^  that  all  these  opera¬ 
tions  in  the  northeast,  east,  and  southeast 
were  unsuccessful.  Shalmaneser  had  not  car¬ 
ried  the  boundaries  of  his  country  beyond 
those  left  by  Ashurnazirpal  in  these  directions. 

In  the  south  alone  did  Shalmaneser  achieve 
real  success.  The  conditions  which  prevailed 
there  were  exactly  fitted  to  give  the  Assyrians 
an  opportunity  to  interfere,  and  Shalmaneser 
was  quick  to  seize  it.  In  the  earlier  part  of 
his  reign  the  Babylonian  king  was  Nabu-alpu- 
iddin,  who  after  his  quarrel  with  Ashurnazirpal 
had  devoted  himself  chiefly  to  the  internal 
affairs  of  his  kingdom.  He  made  a  treaty 
of  peace  with  Shalmaneser,2  and  all  went  well 
between  the  two  kingdoms  until  Nabu-aplu- 
iddin  died.  His  successor  was  his  son,  Marduk- 
nadin-shum,  against  whom  his  brother,  Mar- 
duk-bel-usate,  revolted.  This  rebellion  was 
localized  in  the  southern  part  of  the  kingdom, 


1  Obelisk,  lines  174- 190. 

2  Synchronistic  History,  col.  iii,  22-25. 


242  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


comprising  the  powerful  land  of  Kaldi.  The 
Babylonians  had  engaged  in  no  war  for  a 
long  time,  and  were  entirely  unable  to  cope 
with  the  hardy  warriors  of  Kaldi,  whom  Mar- 
duk-bel-usati  had  at  his  command.  The  law¬ 
ful  king,  Marduk-nadin-shum,  fearing  that 
Babylon  would  be  overwhelmed  by  the  army 
which  his  brother  was  bringing  against  it, 
resolved  upon  the  suicidal  course  of  inviting 
Assyrian  intervention.  This  was  in  852,  and 
no  appeal  could  have  been  more  welcome. 
Ever  since  the  last  period  of  Assyrian  decay 
the  kingdom  of  Babylonia  had  been  entirely 
free  of  all  subjection  to  Assyria.  Here  was 
an  opportunity  for  reasserting  the  old  pro¬ 
tectorate.  Shalmaneser  marched  into  Baby¬ 
lonia  in  852,  and  again  in  851,  and  halted  first 
at  Kutha,  where  he  offered  sacrifice,  and  then 
entered  Babylon  to  sacrifice  to  the  great  god 
Marduk,  also  visiting  Borsippa,  where  he  offered 
sacrifices  to  Nabu.  It  is  not  to  be  doubted 
that  by  these  presentations  of  sacrifices  Shal¬ 
maneser  intended  not  only  to  show  his  piety 
and  devotion  to  the  gods,  but  also  to  display 
himself  as  the  legitimate  overlord  of  the  country. 
Having  paid  these  honors  to  the  gods,  he 
then  marched  down  into  Chaldea  and  attacked 
the  rebels.  He  took  several  cities,  and  com¬ 
pletely  overcame  Marduk-bel-usate  and  com¬ 
pelled  him  to  pay  tribute.  From  this  time 
forward  until  the  end  of  his  reign  Marduk- 


11—243 


4.  "■  * 


nadin-shum  ruled  peacefully  in  Babylon  undei 
•  re !  U  ■  ■,  -  a’  •  .  \  sc-  •  eta,  ’  \  !  .  in  ca is  ■ ,  •  ■ '  ' 

the  king  of  Assyria  had  once  more  become 
the  real  ruler  of  Babylonia,  the  Chaldeans  by 
their  inaction  acknowledging  the  hopelessness 
of  any  present  u 

bnnqi  ?(.f)  ,11  5S.8^8)  III  lo. 

won  bna  (d^kO)  bjjqipniZ  tfi  ^uiblind  ai 

no  bddnDaui  vlIulituBod  8i  )1  .innoanM  xfeitnH  odi  ai 
•*  __  ■  . 

lo  gaoijfboqxy  9di  io  dnuopofe  cib  iiJiw  jBobia  'woi  \Ui 
nO  uram  aid  ib^ai&ay  ono-yhidt  ^fli’iuh  snid  adt 
ni  siSifhi  llama  ytnwi  IIb  ni  oxfi  3X9di'89bi8  xuoi  orb 
B'  id  aaoiiioq1  xxroi  ^niniitnob  891198  d9£9  ; 891X98  bvji 
-xod  n  In  elndixi  id  iddntf&q  srd  yaiino^tqex  snsoa 
9bk  d*M9  'to  qof  edr  hi  index  odT  .yx.tnuoo  niai 
gfnfol  obik  de&9  no  brtoo98  edt  poixoa  mo  amtot 
.  :  :8Y70lIot  8B  9XB  891X998  9ifl.’  .HO  08  bflfi  <X9d.t01IB 

i  pi  4-HBsii0  do  bu38  io  etudh?  odf  .1 
.(ktni8l)  ixnxQ  io  hml  edi  io  ndol  io  elodixi  odd"  .S: 

.hauM  io  bind  odt  ip  eijjdixi  prfT  .8 
io  bnel  orfi  io  •n/andBqB^uhiBM  io  ptudixi  ed  L  X 

tup  wflll  eon  si  ructions  of  Shalnianep  1 

!.:.  : >;/;  1 1  ,.<>  )  :b  V<I  iifnn-o SoiWj 

I'ukulti-Ninib  !  and  wj'i 


1  th< 


roun  c 


the  western  and  southwestern,  and  even  the 

southern  limits  of  the  city.  His  method  was 
novel,  for  we  know  of  no  similar  works  from 
any  former  king.  He  built  a  great  outer  wad 
which  ran  along  the  scarp  above  the 

Synchronistic  History,  col.  iii,  25-iv,  14,  Obeli,  k,  a 

*  .it  i v,  i  -  i  b. 


V 


Obelisk  of  Shalmaneser  III  (858-823  B.  C.),  found 
in  the  central  building  at  Nimroud  (Calah)  and  now 
in  the  British  Museum.  It  is  beautifully  inscribed  on 
all  four  sides  with  an  account  of  the  expeditions  of 
the  king  during  thirty-one  years  of  his  reign.  On 
the  four  sides  there  are  in  all  twenty  small  reliefs  in 
five  series,  each  series  containing  four  portions  of  a 
scene  representing  the  payment  of  tribute  of  a  cer¬ 
tain  country.  The  relief  at  the  top  of  each  side 
forms  one  series,  the  second  on  each  side  forms 
another,  and  so  on.  The  scenes  are  as  follows : 

1.  The  tribute  of  Shua  of  Gilzan. 

2.  The  tribute  of  Jehu  of  the  land  of  Omri  (Israel). 

3.  The  tribute  of  the  land  of  Musri. 

4.  The  tribute  of  Marduk-apal-usur  of  the  land  of 
Sukhu. 

5.  The  tribute  of  Kalparuda  of  Khatin. 

[Photograph  by  Kleinmann  &  Co.,  Haarlem.] 


SHALMANESER  III 


243 


nadin-shum  ruled  peacefully  in  Babylon  under 
the  protectorate  of  Assyria.1  By  this  campaign 
the  king  of  Assyria  had  once  more  become 
the  real  ruler  of  Babylonia,  the  Chaldeans  by 
their  inaction  acknowledging  the  hopelessness 
of  any  present  rebellion. 

While  the  great  campaigns  went  on,  build¬ 
ing  in  Assyria  apparently  never  ceased.  The 
king  was  often  at  home,  while  his  generals 
wielded  besoms  of  destruction  in  outlying  lands. 
But  while  he  was  at  home  the  king’s  thoughts 
were  of  war,  for  most  of  the  constructions 
of  his  whose  remains  have  been  found,  or  of 
which  he  left  accounts  were  walls  of  defense, 
or  fortified  gates  of  the  city  of  Asshur.  He 
might  well  boast  of  these,  for  they  were  indeed 
massive  in  proportion,  solid  in  construction, 
and  well  conceived  according  to  the  military 
science  of  his  time.  We  shall  see,  however, 
that  he  did  not  forget  the  claims  of  religion. 

The  wall  constructions  of  Shalmaneser  III 
at  Asshur  began  on  the  northwest  angle  of 
the  city  outside  the  platform  and  palace  of 
Tukulti-Ninib  I,  and  swept  all  the  way  round 
the  western  and  southwestern,  and  even  the 
southern  limits  of  the  city.  His  method  was 
novel,  for  we  know  of  no  similar  works  from 
any  former  king.  He  built  a  great  outer  wall 
which  ran  along  the  scarp  above  the  city 

1  Synchronistic  History,  col.  iii,  25-iv,  14.  Obelisk,  lines  73-84. 
Balawat  iv,  i-iv,  8. 


244  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


moat,  which  Ashurnazirpal  had  cleared  out. 
On  the  northwest  angle  of  the  city  was  a  gate 
of  immense  proportions,  through  which  it  seems 
probable  that  the  chief  intercourse  of  the  city 
with  the  surrounding  country  was  had,  and 
a  little  further  to  the  south  were  the  masses 
of  brick  which  formed  the  Gugurri  (or  metal 
worker’s)  gate.  This  wall  rested  on  founda¬ 
tions  about  thirty-five  feet  thick,  and  the 
towers  on  the  wall  about  twenty-six  feet  wide, 
with  intervening  curtains  of  somewhat  less 
than  one  hundred  feet.  Nearly  parallel  with 
this  outer  wall,  and  distant  from  it  usually 
about  sixty-five  feet,  runs  the  inner  wall,  though 
it  bends  much  farther  within  opposite  the 
western  gates,  evidently  for  the  convenience 
of  the  traffic.  This  wall  is  on  the  average 
nearly  twenty-three  feet  thick  and  is  similar 
to  the  outer  in  its  towers  and  curtains.  Many, 
if  not  most  of  the  bricks  bore  the  king’s  name, 
titles,  and  genealogy.  The  walls  were  decorated 
in  some  fashion,  no  longer  quite  clear  to  us, 
with  the  terra-cotta  nail-formed  objects  called 
by  the  Assyrians  Zigati.  The  gates  were 
adorned  with  enameled  bricks  richly  colored, 
the  prevailing  tones  and  shades  being  yellow, 
blue,  and  black.1  The  art  forms  were  rather 

1  For  these  walls  compare  the  inscriptions  of  Shalmaneser  III,  es¬ 
pecially  the  Throne  inscription,  col.  ii,  lines  21,  ff.  (Delitzsch,  Bcilawat 
Tore,  p.  152,  f.,  quoted  also  in  Andrae,  Festungswerke,  Textband,  p. 
169,  f.).  The  Gugurri-gate  Zigati  and  the  bricks  relaling  to  the  walls 
are  assembled  in  Andrae,  op.  cit.,  p.  170.  For  the  present  archaeologies) 


11—243 


...  J  V.  s;  V 


crude  iu  gerwoal,  b  it  t-  i  portrait  statue'  o 
the  king  marks  a  dis  iriet  advance  over  the 

workmanship  of  A  '  ait  J  k  a  pity 
i 

he  interesting  t  ,* -aether  they  formed 

in  any avey  l  t  ■=  *  -  are  zing  aci ieve- 

■ 

9iio  ho  afoiloi  w6\  i9qqu  Mi  ^nmoib  t(.0  .h  0C8 
WhsBOiqoi  bhrt  felt  |fe  imiria  kmil  Mm  edT'*  .obfe 
1o‘  bM3  lo  hoiapimcfoa  Ml  ^xir^vm  m’-uaGmhufe 
.bibf  ;b!o;Q :  yovffe  lo  otudht  tiigooid  od>/  tHR"oO 
biiw  AsbihI  10  %aii  fnd^L  pthoabiqm  bnodep/sHT  .019 
MtYo  othdht odt^ihaif r  MT  .eiudhd  iBlimfe  b  ;Bvbs 
dtwol  9ift  bHB  iebbiBehta.  •  ,iwi'  4  to  hnai 

baBt  odt  do  do  9Mkxt  ed-  pa 

. 

rod  odT 

yBiiioq  -of  bobnoini ieqBil  loq  ol  h  be  b  ,190b  u.  g ;  a  ■  ah  d 

them  to  the  wounded 

...  e  [;mohBBKh>oO^  .amatm&l  %A  dqmg  otobhj 
of  tl i  reign  was  ii  bronze  7  m  A.  o 
maneser  built  four  pairs  of  great  doors  nearly 
.vnty-two  feet  high,  six  feet  v  ide  and  three 

diameter,  pointed  at  the  boltom  anil  cove  • 
-e h  bronze  to  move  in  ;  stone  gate  sock 
'Those  wooden  doors  were  bound  with  rc 


. .  .  ><  r>.  : ■ 

BUii-.i'iar  i  •  111!  "f  ■  ■ 


Obelisk  of  Shalmaneser  III,  king  of  Assyria  (859- 
825  B.  C.),  showing  the  upper  four  reliefs  on  one 
side.  The  relief  here  shown  as  the  first  represents 
Shalmaneser  receiving  the  submission  of  Shua  of 
Gozan,  who  brought  tribute  of  silver,  gold,  lead, 
etc.  The  second  represents  Jehu,  king  of  Israel,  who 
gave  a  similar  tribute.  The  third  is  the  tribute  of  the 
land  of  Musri,  consisting  of  camels;  and  the  fourth 
is  the  tribute  of  Marduk-apal-usur  of  the  land  of 
Sukku,  consisting  also  of  silver,. gold,  and  the  like. 
The  picture  represents  a  forest  scene,  with  a  lion 
hunting  a  deer,  and  was  perhaps  intended  to  portray 
the  character  of  this  land. 

[Photograph  by  Kleinmann  &  Co.,  Haarlem.] 


SHALMANESER  III 


245 


crude  in  general,  but  the  portrait  statue  of 
the  king  marks  a  distinct  advance  over  the 
workmanship  of  Adad-nirari.  It  is  a  pity 
that  animal  sculptures  are  rare,  for  it  would 
be  interesting  to  see  whether  they  formed 
in  any  way  a  transition  to  the  amazing  achieve¬ 
ments  of  the  seventh  century.  In  a  measure, 
the  lack  of  much  sculpture  in  the  round  is 
made  up  by  much  material  in  the  relief,  by 
which  we  are  able  to  appraise  the  artistic 
achievements  of  this  great  reign,  The  finest 
reliefs  of  the  period  are  those  cut  in  stone 
upon  the  beautiful  black  obelisk  (see  page 
243).  The  double-humped  Bactrian  camels 
are  portrayed  with  fine  sense  of  proportion, 
and  good  carriage,  while  the  leaping  lions 
and  antelopes  are  stiff  and  unconvincing.  It 
is  a  far  cry  in  the  development  of  art  from 
them  to  the  wounded  lion  of  the  later  period 
(see  plate  463).  The  greatest  artistic  triumph 
of  the  reign  was  in  bronze  repousse.  Shal¬ 
maneser  built  four  pairs  of  great  doors  nearly 
twenty-two  feet  high,  six  feet  wide  and  three 
inches  thick.  Each  half  of  a  pair  of  doors 
was  attached  to  a  round  post,  eighteen  inches 
in  diameter,  pointed  at  the  bottom  and  covered 
with  bronze  to  move  in  a  stone  gate  socket. 
These  wooden  doors  were  bound  with  bronze 
bands  ten  inches  wide  and  eight  feet  in  length, 


remains  of  these  works,  the  same  book  is  to  be  consulted,  and  there  is 
an  excellent  summary  of  Shalmaneser’s  work  in  it,  p.  4,  ff. 


246  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


when  straightened  out,  but  when  in  place 
rounded  in  the  middle  about  the  eighteen-inch 
post,  and  therefore  extending  a  little  over 
three  feet  on  each  side  of  the  door.  On  these 
bronze  plates  the  king  had  portrayed  scenes 
from  his  campaigns.  The  figures  were  beaten 
in  repousse  style  from  the  back,  and  usually 
finished  with  the  graver’s  tool  in  the  front, 
while  in  a  few  places  the  work  has  been  finished 
by  indenting  portions  of  figures  in  the  front. 
The  work  is  full  of  surprises.  It  is  effective 
when  viewed  as  a  whole,  though  with  much 
unevenness  in  execution,  and  well  deserves 
to  be  described  as  beautiful.  The  human 
figures  are  not  so  good  as  the  animal,  which 
need  occasion  no  amazement,  while  some  of 
the  latter,  and  notably  the  sheep,  are  as  won¬ 
derful  in  execution  as  they  are  in  design.  When 
it  is  remembered  that  these  plates  were  ex¬ 
ecuted  about  850  years  before  Christ  among 
a  people  whose  energies  seem  chiefly  to  have 
been  absorbed  in  savage  wTar  they  become 
one  of  the  marvels  of  human  history.1 

The  greatest  endowment  of  religion  in  Shal¬ 
maneser’s  (III)  reign  was  the  rebuilding  of 

1  There  is  a  brief  general  sketch  of  the  Bronze  Gates  in  P.  S.  P.  Hand- 
cock,  Mesopotamian  Archaeology  (London,  1912),  pp.  258,  ff.  The 
plates  are  reproduced  in  natural  size  in  Birch  and  Pinches,  The  Bronze 
Ornaments  of  the  Palace  Gates  of  Balawat.  Five  parts  in  folio.  Lon¬ 
don,  1880.  See  also  Ad.  Billerbeck  and  Frdr.  Delitzsch,  Die  Palasttore 
Sahnanassars  aus  Balawat,  Beitrage  zur  Assyriologie,  vi,  pp.  1-155. 
They  are  sumptuously  published  in  King,  Bronze  Reliefs  from  the  Gates 
of  Bhalmaneser.  London,  1915, 


SHALMANESER  III 


247 


the  temple  of  Ami  and  Adad  in  Asshur.  Two 
hundred  and  fifty  years  have  flown  since  we 
saw  Tiglathpileser  I  building  its  halls  and 
courts,  and  setting  up  its  Zikurrats.  Shal¬ 
maneser  finds  it  “fallen,”  describing  it  as  every 
king  was  prone  to  picture  the  works  of  his 
predecessors.  There  were,  however,  great  masses 
of  the  original  building  still  in  existence,  and 
much  of  the  ancient  work  is  still  to  be  seen 
by  modern  eyes  in  the  great  trenches  of  the 
German  excavators.  The  methods  of  Shal¬ 
maneser  have  been  revealed  to  our  eyes,  by 
these  excavations,  even  more  than  by  the 
three  classes  of  inscriptions1  relating  to  this 
rebuilding  which  the  king  has  left  us. 

The  king  swept  away  all  that  remained  of 
the  old  temple  down  to  a  level  of  about  six¬ 
teen  feet  above  the  ground.  On  the  base  thus 
leveled  off  he  erected  a  double  temple,  similar 
in  plan  to  the  former  one,  but  increased  in 
size.  He  made,  indeed,  new  bricks  a  plenty, 
each  about  fourteen  inches  square,  and  five 
inches  thick,  but  he  made  most  extensive  use 
of  the  rather  lighter  bricks  which  he  had  taken 
out  of  the  work  of  Tiglathpileser  I.  But  the 
economical  use  of  former  materials  must  not 
diminish  the  great  king’s  glory.  His  new 

1  Three  kinds  are  (a)  A  fine  terra  cotta  Zigat,  with  a  very  brief  state¬ 
ment  of  the  rebuilding,  (b)  Basalt  hinge  stones  with  the  king’s  name 
and  titles,  and  a  statement  that  he  had  dedicated  the  temple  to  Anu 
and  Adad.  (c)  Building  bricks  with  the  king’s  name  and  genealogy. 
The  texts  are  assembled,  transliterated,  and  translated  by  Walter 
Andrae,  Der  Ana- Atlacl-T 'empcl  in  Assur.  Leipzig,  1909,  p.  40,  ff. 


248  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


temple  was  not  only  larger,  it  was  quite  surely 
far  more  magnificent.  In  it  was  a  statue  of 
Adad,  of  which  we  know  only  one  thing,  but 
that  most  significant.  The  explorers  have 
found  a  piece  of  solid  gold  seventeen  and  a 
half  inches  long,  carved  to  represent  con¬ 
ventionally  a  flash  of  lightning — the  natural 
adornment  for  Adad,  as  we  had  already  known. 
This  silent  piece  of  metal  once  grasped  in  Adad’s 
hand  may  give  us  some  faint  idea  of  the  mag¬ 
nificence  and  costly  splendor  of  the  shrine  to 
which  it  belonged. 

Such  artistic  achievements  as  these  must 
have  rested  upon  a  broad  base  of  industrial¬ 
ism,  for  the  execution  of  these  great  as  well 
as  beautiful  works  would  have  taxed  to  the 
utmost  the  resources  of  a  land  which  had 
fought  less  and  given  more  heed  to  the  ar¬ 
tistic  industries. 

We  have  traced  in  logical  rather  than  in 
chronological  order  the  campaigns  of  Shal¬ 
maneser  from  the  beginning  to  the  close  of 
the  thirty-first  year  of  his  reign.  At  this 
point  all  record  of  his  reign  breaks  off,  and 
for  the  closing  years  we  are  confined  to  the 
information  derived  from  the  records  of  his 
son,  Shamshi-Adad  V.  There  are  no  more 
records  of  Shalmaneser’s  doings  in  the  last 
years  of  his  reign,  because  they  were  too  trou¬ 
bled  to  give  any  leisure  for  the  erection  of 
such  splendid  monuments  as  those  from  which 


SHALMANESER  TIT 


249 


our  knowledge  of  his  earlier  years  has  been 
derived.  In  the  year  829  B.  C.  there  was  a 
rebellion  led  by  Shalmaneser’s  own  son,  Ashur- 
danin-apli.  We  know  but  little  of  it,  and  that 
little,  as  already  said,  derived  from  the  brief 
notices  of  it  preserved  in  the  inscriptions  of 
Shamshi-Adad  V.  We  have  no  direct  means 
of  learning  even  the  cause  of  the  outbreak. 
Neither  can  we  find  an  explanation  of  the 
great  strength  of  the  rebels,  nor  understand 
its  sudden  collapse  when  apparently  it  was 
in  the  ascendant.  Wars  of  succession  have 
always  been  so  common  in  the  Orient  that, 
failing  any  other  explanation,  we  are  probably 
safe  in  the  suggestion  that  .Shalmaneser  had 
probably  provided  by  will,  or  decree,  that 
Shamshi-Adad  should  succeed  him.  Ashur- 
danin-apli  attempted  by  rebellion  to  gain  the 
throne  for  himself,  and  the  strange  thing  was 
that  he  was  followed  in  his  rebellion  by  the 
better  part  of  the  kingdom.  The  capital 
city,  Calah,  remained  faithful  to  the  king,  but 
Nineveh,  Asshur,  Arbela,  among  the  older 
cities,  and  the  chief  colonies,  a  total  of  twenty- 
seven  cities,  joined  the  forces  of  Ashur-danin- 
apli.  It  is  difficult  to  account  for  the  strength 
of  this  rebellion,  unless,  perhaps,  the  leader 
of  it  was  really  the  elder  son,  and  a  sense  of 
fairness  and  justice  in  the  people  overcame 
their  allegiance  to  their  sovereign.  The  strug¬ 
gle  began  in  829,  and  before  the  death  of  Shal- 


250  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


maneser,  in  825  B.  C.,  the  kingdom  for  which 
he  had  warred  so  valiantly  had  been  split  into 
two  discordant  parts,  of  which  Shalmaneser 
was  able  to  hold  only  the  newly  won  provinces 
in  the  north  and  west,  together  with  the  land 
of  Babylonia.  The  old  Assyrian  homeland  was 
in  the  hand  of  the  rebels,  and  all  the  signs 
seemed  to  indicate  that  Babylonia  would  soon 
regain  complete  independence  and  that  the 
Aramaean  peoples  would  be  able  to  throw  off 
their  onerous  yoke.  After  the  death  of  Shal¬ 
maneser,  Shamshi-Adad  spent  two  more  years 
in  civil  war  before  he  was  acknowledged  as 
the  legitimate  king  of  Assyria.  We  do  not 
know  what  it  was  that  gave  him  the  victory, 
but  a  complete  victory  it  was,  and  we  hear 
no  more  of  the  rebels  or  their  leader.1 

The  civil  war  had  brought  dire  consequences 
upon  the  kingdom  which  Ashurnazirpal  had 
made  great,  and  Shalmaneser  had  held  to  its 
allegiance  for  thirty-one  long  years.  It  was 
therefore  necessary,  as  soon  as  his  title  to  the 
throne  was  ever}^where  recognized,  for  Shamshi- 
Adad  V  to  undertake  such  campaigns  as 
would  secure  to  him  the  loyalty  of  the  waver¬ 
ing  and  doubtful,  and  would  overcome  the 
openly  rebellious  or  disaffected.  His  first  cam¬ 
paign  was  directed  against  the  troublesome 
lands  of  Nairi,  which  may  have  been  planning 

1  Inscription  of  Shamshi-Adad  (I  R.  29-31),  col.  i,  39-53.  See  trans¬ 
lation  by  Abel  in  Keilinschrift.  Bill.,  i,  pp.  174-187. 


SHALMANESER  III 


251 


an  uprising  to  free  themselves  from  the  tribute. 
Shamshi-Adad  entered  the  land  and  received 
their  tribute  without  being  required  to  strike 
a  blow.  He  must  have  forestalled  any  organ¬ 
ized  resistance.  The  promptness  with  which 
the  campaign  was  undertaken  and  the  com¬ 
pleteness  of  its  success  make  it  seem  probable 
that  Shamshi-Adad  had  had  from  the  be¬ 
ginning  the  support  of  the  standing  army  of 
Assyria.  If  this  were  the  case,  we  can  the 
better  understand  how  the  rebellion  against 
him  was  put  down  even  when  the  greater 
part  of  the  country  had  embraced  the  fortunes 
of  Ashur-danin-apli,  for  the  commercial  classes 
of  Assyria  could  not  stand  against  the  dis¬ 
ciplined,  hardened  veterans  of  Shalmaneser. 
As  soon  as  the  danger  in  the  Nairi  lands  had 
been  overcome  Shamshi-Adad  marched  up  and 
down  over  the  entire  land  of  Assyria,  “from 
the  city  of  Paddira  in  the  Nairi  to  Kar-Shul- 
manasharid  of  the  territory  of  Carchemish; 
from  Zaddi  of  the  land  of  Accad  to  the  land 
of  Enzi;  from  Aridi  to  the  land  of  Sukhi/’1 
and  over  the  whole  territory  the  people  bowed 
in  submission  to  him.  This  is  the  first  instance 
in  Assyrian  history  of  a  king’s  marching  from 
point  to  point  in  his  own  dominions  to  re¬ 
ceive  protestations  of  allegiance.  It  shows 
clearly  to  what  unrest  the  land  had  come 
during  the  civil  war. 


1  Inscription  of  Shamshi-Adad  (I  R.  29-31),  col.  ii,  7-15. 


252  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


The  second  campaign  was  undertaken  chiefly, 
if  not  wholly,  for  the  collection  of  tribute. 
Its  course  was  directed  first  into  the  land  of 
Nairi  and  thence  westward  to  the  Mediter¬ 
ranean.  Cities  in  great  numbers  were  dev¬ 
astated  and  burned,  and  the  territory  against 
which  Shalmaneser  had  so  long  made  war 
was  brought  again  to  feel  the  Assyrian  power.1 
The  leader  in  this  campaign  was  Mutarris- 
Ashur. 

The  third  campaign,  likewise  in  search  of 
booty,  was  directed  against  the  east  and  north. 
The  lands  of  Khubushkia  and  Parsua  were 
crossed,  and  the  journey  led  thence  to  the 
coasts  of  Lake  Urumiyeh,  and  then  into  Media. 
In  Media,  as  in  the  other  lands,  tribute  and 
gifts  were  abundantly  given.  Again  the  Nairi 
lands  were  overrun,  and  the  king  returned 
to  Assyria,  assured  only  that  the  tribute  would 
be  paid  as  long  as  he  was  able  to  enforce  it.2 

In  the  next  year  of  his  reign  Shamshi-Adad 
was  compelled  to  invade  Babylonia.  The  years 
of  the  Assyrian  civil  war  had  given  that  land 
the  coveted  opportunity  to  claim  independence. 
Marduk-zakir-shum  had  been  succeeded  in 
Babylon  by  Marduk-balatsu-iqbi  (about  812 
B.  C.),  though  the  exact  year  of  the  change 
is  unknown  to  us.  He  paid  no  Assyrian  tribute, 
and  in  all  things  acted  as  an  independent 


1  Ibid.,  ii,  16-34. 

2  Ibid.,  ii,  34-iii,  24. 


SHALMANESER  III 


253 


ruler.  Against  him  Shamshi-Adad  marched. 
His  course  into  Babylonia  was  not  down  the 
Mesopotamian  valley,  as  one  might  have  ex¬ 
pected.  He  went  east  of  the  Tigris  along 
the  edge  of  the  mountains.  He  seems  not  to 
have  made  a  hasty  march,  for  he  boasts  of 
having  killed  three  lions  and  of  having  de¬ 
stroyed  cities  and  villages  on  the  way.  The 
river  Turnat  was  crossed  at  flood.  At  Dur- 
Papsukal,  in  northern  Babylonia,  he  was  met 
by  Marduk-balatsu-iqbi  and  his  allies.  The 
Babylonian  army  consisted  of  Babylonians, 
Chaldeans,  Elamites,  Aramaeans,  and  men  of 
Namri,  and  was  therefore  composed  of  the 
peoples  who  feared  the  development  of  Assyria 
and  were  willing  to  unite  against  it,  even 
though  they  were  usually  common  enemies. 
Shamshi-Adad  claims  to  have  won  a  great 
victory,  in  which  five  thousand  of  his  enemies 
were  slain  and  two  thousand  taken  captive. 
One  hundred  chariots  and  even  the  Babylonian 
royal  tent  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  victor.1 
We  may,  however,  well  doubt  whether  the 
victory  was  so  decisive.  The  only  inscription 
which  we  possess  of  Shamshi-Adad  breaks  off 
abruptly  at  this  point.  But  the  Eponym  List 
shows  that  in  813  he  again  invaded  Chaldea, 
while  in  812  he  invaded  Babylon.  These  two 
supplementary  campaigns  would  seem  to  indi¬ 
cate  that  he  had  not  achieved  his  entire  pur- 


1  Ibid.,  col.  iv,  1-24. 


254  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


pose  in  the  battle  of  Dur-Papsukal.  It  is 
indeed  unlikely  that  he  succeeded  in  restoring 
the  conditions  which  prevailed  in  the  reign  of 
Shalmaneser,  though  his  short  reign  was,  on 
the  whole,  successful.  If  he  had  not  had  the 
civil  war  to  quell  and  its  consequences  to  undo, 
he  might  well  have  made  important  additions 
to  the  territory  of  Assyria.  We  know  nothing 
of  his  contributions  to  civilization,  but  it  seems 
probable  that  the  brilliant  advance  made  by 
his  father  was  not  sustained 

The  name  of  his  wife  was  Sammuramat,  who 
was  probably  a  Babylonian  princess.  She 
rose  to  such  distinction  that  a  stela  was  erected 
to  her  honor  in  Asshur,  bearing  the  legend 

The  stela  of  Sammuramat 
Woman  of  the  palace  (that  is,  wife)  of  Shamshi- 
Adad 

King  of  the  world,  king  of  Assyria, 

Mother  of  Adadnirari 

King  of  the  world,  king  of  Assyria, 

Daughter-in-law  of  Shalmaneser 

King  of  the  four  quarters  (of  the  earth).1 

To  no  other  queen  had  such  glory  come,  and 
yet  greater  were  destined  to  come  to  her,  not 
in  history  but  in  legend,  for  around  her  name 

1  For  the  text  see  Walter  Andrae,  Die  Stehlenreihen  in  Assur  (Leip¬ 
zig,  1913),  p.  11,  and  compare  Lehmann-Haupt,  Die  historische  Sem- 
iramis  und  Hire  Zeit,  Tubingen,  1910.  For  the  legendary  Semiramis 
see  F.  Lenormant,  La  Legende  de  Semiramis,  Paris,  1873,  and  com¬ 
pare  Sayce,  The  Legend  of  Semiramis,  English  Historical  Review,  iii 
(1888),  pp.  104-113,  and  Ulrich  Wilcken,  Hermes  28  (1893),  pp.  161,  IT. 
and  especially  p.  187,  f. 


SHALMANESER  III 


255 


there  later  flourished  such  a  rich  and  colorful 
growth  of  traditions  as  cluster  about  no  other 
name  in  the  whole  history  of  her  people.  In 
her  case  we  see  clearly  how  legend  is  attached 
to  an  historic  name,  and  how  its  growths  are 
rooted  in  an  historic  soil. 

Shamshi-Adad  was  succeeded  by  his  son, 
Adad-nirari  IV  (810-781  B.  C.),  whose  long 
reign  was  filled  with  important  deeds.  Un- 
fortunately,  however,  we  are  not  able  to  follow 
his  campaigns  in  detail  because  his  very  few 
fragmentary  inscriptions  give  merely  the  names 
of  the  countries  which  he  plundered,  without 
giving  the  order  of  his  marches  or  any  details 
of  his  campaigns.  In  806,  in  803,  and  in  7971 
he  made  expeditions  to  the  west  in  which  he 
claims  to  have  received  tribute  and  gifts  from 
the  land  of  the  Hittites,  from  Tyre,  Sidon, 
the  land  of  Omri,2  Edom,  and  Philistia  to  the 
Mediterranean.  On  this  same  expedition  he 
besieged  Damascus  and  received  from  it  great 
booty.  The  king  of  Damascus  was  Mari;  and 
Adad-nirari  could  scarcely  have  had  a  greater 
triumph  than  the  humbling  of  the  proud  state 
which  had  marshaled  so  many  allied  armies 
against  the  advance  of  the  Assyrians  and  had 

1  The  expedition  of  797  was  against  the  city  of  Mansuate,  which 
stood  in  the  basin  of  the  Orontes  (Schrader,  Keilinschriften  und  Geschichts- 
forschung,  pp.  121,  122,  and  see  also  Maspero,  The  Passing  of  the  Empires, 
p.  100,  note  2. 

2  “The  land  of  Omri”  is  the  usual  Assyrian  expression  for  the  land 
of  Israel,  during  a  long  period.  Omri  made  so  deep  an  impression 
upon  his  neighbors  that  his  country  was  named  after  him. 


256  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


then  held  out  single-handed  so  long  against 
them.  These  expeditions  to  the  west  accom¬ 
plished  little  more  of  importance.  It  was 
no  new  thing  to  receive  tribute  from  the  un¬ 
warlike  merchants  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  and 
the  Israelites  had  long  since  become  a  sub¬ 
ject  people.  Only  Edom  and  Philistia  are 
named  as  fresh  conquests. 

In  the  northeast  also  he  was  brilliantly 
successful.  The  Eponym  Lists  mention  no 
less  than  eight  campaigns  against  the  Medes, 
and  the  conquests  in  this  direction  carried 
the  king  even  to  the  Caspian  Sea,  to  which 
no  former  Assyrian  king  had  penetrated. 

In  the  north  he  did  not  get  beyond  the 
limits  of  his  ancestors.  Urartu,  which  had  so 
strenuously  asserted  and  maintained  its  rights, 
was  not  disturbed  at  all,  and  remained  an 
entirely  independent  kingdom. 

In  the  south  Adad-nirari  IV  was  entirely 
successful,  as  he  had  been  in  the  west.  We 
have  already  seen  that  there  was  an  expedition 
against  Babylonia  in  812,  and  this  was  followed 
in  803  by  one  against  the  Sea  Lands  about 
the  Persian  Gulf.  In  796  and  795  Babylonia 
was  again  invaded.  One  of  these  campaigns, 
but  which  one  is  uncertain,  was  directed  against 
a  certain  Bau-akhi-iddin,  king  of  Babylon. 
Assyrian  influence  was  completely  reestablished 
by  these  campaigns,  and  Babylonia  again  be¬ 
came  practically  an  Assyrian  province.  The 


SHALMANESER  III 


257 


Assyrian  Synchronistic  History,  from  which  we 
have  largely  and  repeatedly  drawn  in  the 
narrative  of  several  previous  kings,  was  edited 
and  compiled  at  this  time  as  one  of  the  signs 
of  the  emphatic  union  of  the  two  peoples. 
It  was  the  purpose  of  Adad-nirari  IV  to  blot 
out  completely  the  distinctions  and  differ¬ 
ences  between  them.  He  even  began  an  inter¬ 
mixture  of  their  religions.  Though  the  As¬ 
syrians  had  begun  their  career  as  a  separate 
people  with  the  Babylonian  religion  as  then 
taught  and  practiced,  the  two  peoples  had 
diverged  through  historical  development,  and 
were  now  in  many  points  quite  different  in 
their  religious  usages.  The  Assyrians  had 
introduced  other  gods,  as,  for  instance,  Ashur, 
into  their  pantheon,  while  the  Babylonians, 
who  had  had  less  contact  with  the  outer  world, 
had  made  less  change.  Adad-nirari  IV  now 
built  in  Assyria  temples  modeled  carefully  on 
Babylonian  exemplars  and  introduced  into  them 
the  forms  of  Babylonian  worship  with  all  its 
ritual.  One  of  the  most  striking  instances 
of  this  policy  was  the  construction  in  Calah, 
his  capital  city,  of  a  great  temple,  the  counter¬ 
part  of  the  temple  of  Ezida  in  Borsippa.  Into 
this  was  brought  from  Borsippa  the  worship 
of  Nabu.  The  policy,  strange  as  it  was,  met 
with  a  certain  success,  for  Babylonia  disappears 
almost  wholly  for  a  long  time  as  a  separate 
state  and  Assyria  alone  finds  mention. 


258  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


In  connection  with  this  introduction  of  the 
worship  of  Nabu  we  get  another  gleam  of 
light  upon  the  distinguished  figure  of  Sam- 
muramat  the  king’s  mother.  There  has  been 
preserved  a  statue  of  Nabu  set  up  in  the  temple 
in  Calah  by  Adad-nirari  IV,  on  the  back  of 
which  is  an  inscription1  containing  these  words: 
“For  the  life  of  Adad-nirari,  king  of  Assyria, 
its  Lord  [that  is,  of  Calah],  and  for  the  life  of 
Sammuramat,  the  lady  of  the  Palace  and  its 
Mistress.”  The  position  held  by  the  king’s 
mother  is  quite  Oriental,  however  strange  it 
may  appear  to  Western  ideas.  The  king’s 
own  queen  is  unmentioned;  the  superior  place 
belongs  to  the  king’s  mother,  the  great  queen 
of  Shamshi-Adad  V. 

The  reign  of  Adad-nirari  IV  must  be  included 
in  any  lists  of  the  greatest  reigns  of  Assyrian 
history.  No  Assyrian  king  before  him  had 
actually  ruled  over  so  wide  an  extent  of  terri¬ 
tory,  and  none  had  ever  possessed,  in  addition 
to  this,  so  extensive  a  circle  of  tribute-paying 
states.  Though  he  had  done  little  in  the 
northeast  and  nothing  in  the  north,  he  had 
immensely  increased  Assyrian  prestige  in  the 
west,  and  in  the  south  Babylonia,  with  all  its 
traditions  of  glory  and  honor,  had  become  an 
integral  part  of  his  dominions. 

After  his  reign  there  comes  slowly  but  surely 


Published  I  R.  35,  No.  2;  Abel  and  Winckler,  Keilschrifttexte  zum 
Gebrauch  bei  Vorlesungen,  p.  14.  Translated  by  Hommel,  Gcschichte 
Babyloniens  und  Assyriens,  p.  630.  Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels,  p.  307. 


SHALMANESER  III 


259 


a  period  of  strange,  almost  inexplicable,  de¬ 
cline.  Of  the  next  three  reigns  we  have  few 
ro}^al  inscriptions,  and  are  confined  for  the 
most  part  to  the  brief  notes  of  the  Eponym 
Lists.  From  these  we  learn  too  little  to  enable 
us  to  follow  the  decline  of  Assyrian  fortunes, 
but  we  gain  here  and  there  a  glimpse  of  it, 
and  see  also  not  less  vividly  the  growth  of 
a  strong  northern  power  which  should  vex 
Assyrian  kings  for  centuries. 

The  successor  of  Adad-nirari  IV  was  Shal¬ 
maneser  IV  (781-771),  to  whom  the  Eponym 
Lists  ascribe  ten  campaigns.  Some  of  these 
were  of  little  consequence.  One  was  against 
the  land  of  Namri,  an  eastern  tributary  coun¬ 
try  of  which  we  have  heard  much  in  previous 
reigns.  It  had  probably  not  paid  the  regular 
tribute,  which  had  therefore  to  be  collected 
in  the  presence  of  an  army.  No  less  than  six 
of  the  campaigns  were  directed  against  the 
land  of  Urartu.  We  know  nothing  directly 
of  these  campaigns  and  their  results.  But 
the  history  of  a  time  not  very  distant  shows 
that  these  campaigns  were  more  than  the 
usual  tribute-collecting  and  plundering  expe¬ 
ditions.  They  were  rather  the  ineffectual  pro¬ 
tests  of  Assyria  against  the  growth  of  a  king¬ 
dom  which  was  now  strong  enough  to  pre¬ 
vent  any  further  Assyrian  tribute  collecting 
within  its  borders,  and  would  soon  be  able  to 
wrench  from  Assyrian  control  the  fair  lands 


260  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


of  Nairi.  A  loss  so  great  as  that  might  well 
give  the  Assyrian  kings  cause  for  anxiety  and 
for  desperate  efforts  to  hinder  the  development 
of  the  enemy.  This  loss  of  tributary  territory 
in  the  north  had  apparently  already  begun  in 
this  reign,  but  there  were  no  other  losses  of 
territory  elsewhere,  and  the  reign  ended  with 
the  substantial  external  integrity  of  the  em¬ 
pire  which  Ashur-nazirpal  had  won. 

The  next  king  was  Ashur-dan  III  (771-753), 
in  whose  reign  the  decay  of  Assyrian  power 
was  rapid,  in  spite  of  strenuous  efforts  to 
maintain  it,  and  in  spite  of  success  in  its  main¬ 
tenance  in  certain  places.  In  the  year  771, 
at  the  very  beginning  of  his  reign,  he  made 
a  campaign  against  the  city  of  Gananati  in 
Babylonia,  but  we  have  unhappily  no  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  issue  of  the  adventure.  In  765 
and  again  in  755  he  marched  against  Khata- 
rikka  in  Syria.  These  three  western  campaigns 
show  that,  however  much  Assyria  had  lost 
in  the  north,  it  had  not  yet  given  up  any  claim 
on  the  prosperous  lands  in  the  south  or  be¬ 
yond  the  Euphrates.  And  the  two  invasions 
of  Babylonia — 771  and  767 — are  evidence  of 
the  same  facts  as  regards  that  land.  Ashur- 
dan  III  was  plainly  endeavoring  to  hold  all 
that  his  fathers  had  won,  but  he  had  as  yet 
undertaken  no  campaigns  against  any  new 
territory.  Whatever  he  may  have  planned 
or  intended  to  do  in  that  way  was  made  im- 


SHALMANESER  III 


261 


possible  by  a  series  of  rebellions  in  Assyrian 
territory.  The  first  of  these  began  in  763  in 
the  city  of  Asshur,  the  ancient  political  and 
religious  center  of  the  kingdom.  We  do  not 
know  its  origin,  but  the  general  character  of 
ancient  Oriental  rebellions  and  the  succession 
of  events  which  immediately  follow  in  this 
story  made  it  seem  probable  that  some  pre¬ 
tender  had  attempted  to  seize  the  throne.  The 
attempt  failed  for  the  present  and  the  re¬ 
bellion  was  put  down  in  the  same  year. 

This  was  shortly  (761)  followed  by  another 
rebellion,  also  of  unknown  cause,  in  the  province 
of  Arpakha,  known  to  the  Greeks  as  Arra- 
pachitis,1  a  territory  on  the  waters  of  the 
Upper  Zab;  while  a  third  at  Guzanu,  in  the 
land  of  the  Khabur,  took  place  in  759  and 
758.  These  rebellions  were  signs  of  the  changes 
that  were  impending,  and  could  not  long  be 
delayed. 

To  the  superstition  of  the  Assyrians  there 
were  other  omens  than  defeats  and  losses  in 
war,  which  must  have  seemed  to  indicate  the 
approach  of  troublous  days.  In  763  the  Eponym 
List  records  an  eclipse  of  the  sun  in  the  month 
of  Si  van.  To  the  Assyrians  this  was  probably 
an  event  of  doubt  and  concern.  To  modern 
students  it  has  been  of  great  importance,  be¬ 
cause  the  astronomical  determination  has  given 
us  a  sure  point  of  departure  for  Assyrian  chro- 


1  ' A'ppanaxlTig,  Ptol.  vi,  1,  2. 


262  HI  ST  0  JR  Y  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


nology.  By  it  we  are  enabled  to  carry  back¬ 
ward  to  911  and  forward  to  640  the  exact 
dating  of  events  year  by  year.  From  the  same 
source  we  learn  that  in  765  and  again  in  759 
there  were  pestilences,  which  were  gloomy 
omens,  and  more  poignant  than  the  sight  of 
the  sun  darkened  in  the  heavens. 

The  reign  of  Ashur-nirari  V  (753-745)  was’ 
a  period  of  peaceful  decadence.  In  749  and 
748  there  were  two  expeditions  against  the 
land  of  Namri.  With  these  expeditions  the 
king  made  no  effort  to  collect  his  tribute  or 
to  retain  the  vast  territory  which  his  fathers 
had  won.  Year'  after  year  the  Eponym  List 
has  nothing  to  record  but  the  phrase  “in  the 
country/’  meaning  thereby  that  the  king  was 
in  Assyria  and  not  absent  at  the  head  of  his 
armies. 

In  746  there  was  an  uprising  in  the  city  of 
Calah.  We  know  nothing  of  its  origin  or 
progress.  But  in  it  Ashur-nirari  V  disappears 
and  the  next  year  begins  with  a  new  dynasty. 
In  the  person  of  Ashur-nirari  V  ended  the 
career  of  the  great  royal  family  which  had 
ruled  the  fortunes  of  Assyria  for  centuries. 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  REIGNS  OF  TIGLATHPILESER  IV  AND 

SHALMANESER  V 

A  marvelous  change  in  Assyria  was  wrought 
by  the  rebellion  of  746  B.  C.  Before  it  there 
reigned  the  last  king  of  a  dynasty  which  had 
made  the  kingdom  great  and  its  name  feared 
from  east  to  west.  A  degenerate  son  of  a  dis¬ 
tinguished  line  was  he,  and  the  power  which 
had  swept  with  a  force  almost  resistless  over 
mountain  and  valley  was  a  useless  thing  in 
his  hands.  He  remained  in  his  royal  city 
while  the  fairest  provinces  were  taken  away 
and  added  to  the  kingdom  of  Urartu,  and  while 
others  boldly  refused  to  pay  tribute  and  defied 
his  waning  army.  After  746  B.  C.  the  As¬ 
syrian  throne  is  occupied  by  a  man  whose 
very  name  before  that  time  is  so  obscure  and 
unworthy  as  to  be  discarded  by  its  owner. 
We  do  not  know  the  origin  of  this  strange 
man,  for  in  the  pride  of  later  years  he  never 
mentioned  either  father  or  mother,  who  were 
probably  humble  folk  not  dwelling  in  kings’ 
houses.  He  was  perhaps  an  army  commander; 
an  officer  who  had  led  some  part  of  the  great¬ 
est  standing  army  that  the  world  had  then 


264  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


known.  He  may  also  have  held  a  civil  post 
as  governor  of  some  province  or  district.  In 
his  career  that  was  now  to  begin  he  displayed 
both  military  and  civil  ability  of  such  high 
order  that  we  are  almost  driven  to  believe 
that  he  had  been  schooled  by  experience  in 
both  branches  of  effort.  His  reign  was  not 
very  long,  so  that  he  probably  gained  the  throne 
comparatively  late  in  life,  at  a  time  when  the 
power  of  adaptation  is  less  strong  than  in  youth, 
when  the  years  of  a  man’s  life  are  devoted 
rather  to  the  display  of  powers  already  ac¬ 
quired  than  to  the  development  of  new  ones. 
We  do  not  know  whether  he  set  on  foot  the 
rebellion  which  dethroned  Ashur-nirari  V  or 
merely  turned  to  his  own  purposes  an  up¬ 
rising  brought  about  by  others.  In  either  case 
he  acted  with  decision,  for  he  was  crowned 
king  in  745,  the  next  year  after  the  rebellion. 
He  was  well  known  as  a  man  of  resources  and 
of  severity,  for  no  rebellion  against  him  arose, 
and  no  pretender  dared  attempt  to  drive  him 
from  power.  He  spent  no  time  in  marching 
through  the  land  to  overawe  possible  opponents, 
but  at  once  began  operations  outside  the 
boundaries  of  the  old  kingdom.  The  Eponym 
List  bears  this  significant  notice  against  the 
year  745.  “On  the  thirteenth  day  of  the 
month  Iyyar  [April-May],  Tiglathpileser  took 
his  seat  on  the  throne.  In  the  month  of  Tish- 
rit  [September-October]  he  marched  to  the 


TIGLATHPILESER  IV— SHALMANESER  V  265 


territory  between  the  rivers.”  That  he  should 
dare  to  leave  his  capital  and  his  country  imme¬ 
diately  after  his  proclamation  shows  how  sure 
he  was  of  his  own  ability,  and  how  confident 
that  his  personal  popularity  or  his  reputa¬ 
tion  for  severe  discipline  would  maintain  the 
peace.  Whatever  the  name  of  his  youth  and 
manhood  may  have  been,  he  was  proclaimed 
under  the  name  and  style  of  Tiglathpileser, 
adopting  as  his  own  the  name  which  had  been 
made  famous  by  the  great  Assyrian  conqueror, 
whom  he  emulated  in  the  number  and  success 
of  his  campaigns,  and  greatly  surpassed  in  the 
permanency  of  the  results  obtained.  The  name 
of  Tiglathpileser  would  undoubtedly  strengthen 
him  in  the  popular  mind;  for  it  is  beyond 
question  that  in  a  land  like  Assyria,  in  which 
writing,  even  in  the  earliest  times,  was  so 
constantly  practiced,  some  acquaintance  with 
the  history  of  their  kings  was  diffused  among 
even  the  common  people.  He  was  jDlainly  not 
a  descendant  of  the  kings  who  preceded  him, 
or  he  would  certainly  have  followed  the  usual 
custom  of  Assyrian  kings  and  set  down  the 
names  of  his  ancestors  with  all  their  titles. 
He  alludes,  indeed,  to  “the  kings,  my  fathers,”1 
but  this  is  a  boast  without  meaning  when  un¬ 
accompanied  by  the  names. 

There  is  another  proof  of  his  humble  origin 
to  be  found  in  the  contemptuous  treatment  of 


1  Annals,  lines  19;  clay  tablet,  line  26  (II  R.  67). 


2Gf>  II  f  STORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


his  monumental  inscriptions  by  a  later  king. 
Tiglathpileser  restored,  for  his  occupancy,  the 
great  palace  erected  by  Shalmaneser  III  in 
Calah.  Upon  the  walls  of  its  great  rooms  he 
set  up  slabs  of  stone  upon  which  were  beau¬ 
tifully  engraved  inscriptions  recounting  the  cam¬ 
paigns  of  his  reign.  When  Esarhaddon  came 
to  build  his  palace  he  stripped  from  the  walls 
these  great  slabs  of  Tiglathpileser  that  he 
might  use  them  for  his  own  inscriptions.  He 
caused  his  workmen  to  plane  off  their  edges, 
so  destroying  both  beginning  and  ending  of 
some  inscriptions,  and  purposed  then  to  have 
his  own  records  carved  upon  them.  He  died 
without  entirely  completing  his  purpose,  or  we 
should  have  been  left  almost  without  annalistic 
accounts  of  the  events  of  the  reign  of  Tiglath¬ 
pileser.  Such  treatment  as  this  was  never 
given  to  any  royal  inscriptions  before,  and  we 
may  justly  see  in  it  a  slight  upon  the  memory 
of  the  great  plebeian  king. 

Were  it  not  for  the  vandalism  of  the  king 
Esarhaddon  we  should  be  admirably  supplied 
with  historical  material  for  the  reign  of  Tiglath¬ 
pileser.  He  left  behind  him  no  less  than  three 
distinct  classes  of  inscriptions.1  Of  these  the 

1  The  chief  inscription  material  of  the  reign  of  Tiglathpileser  IV  is 
the  following:  (a)  The  Annals,  badly  defaced  by  Esarhaddon,  the  most 
legible  portions  of  which  are  published  by  Layard,  Inscriptions  in  the 
Cuneiform  Char.,  plates  34a,  etc.,  and  afterward  much  more  accurately 
by  Paul  Rost,  Die  Keilschrifttexte  Tiglat-Pilesers  III,  vol.  ii,  plates 
i-xviii.  He  has  also  carefully  arranged  and  translated  them  into  Ger¬ 
man,  ibid.,  i,  pp.  2-41.  (b)  The  Slabs  of  Nimroud,  published  first 


II — 2(17 


which  tile  •  of  th  .n  ai,  liar  a  -  in 

of  hi.-;  insed;  .  * u.  ha  ;  st ah  preser- 

i  *  ( u * » •  u  t .  i  <  ms  of  -  Esai  hadk  i  ■  ■  n . 
I  - 1 ' « •  >5  s ,  wr  ■  frteii  u pon 


i;  \  :  i  Ca?  1  paign 


vation  throvy  :  -ru 

1  he  second 
clay,  give 
gi  ou]  km  v 

an  fitly/  -aftfiorii  \  yd  ;0  folded  v»ifo  b  zo  aol-  •  l 
■BliyBeA  lo  'gnid  <YI.  ‘iSBalxqiifBlgi  I  to  uoi.kpyjr.ui 
buomti  Y  ocij  8B  umv<d  yll/n^aas  haa  <(.Y.o  >  Yfty 
to,r^iai  ?s$dA  to  iiobnorci  b  smRffloo  Jl  kokhl 


yfior/noofii  si  isdmun  Sxff  <68  .q  <BOGI  dk>Mht>  bS 

.onSoIfiffiO  .'Snosiiais.  s  •  :s5pa^'«. 

B.  C .  that  x*  hpileser  IV  (74o~a2*p 


1  -  i  t 


)bnoJ‘,:qa  Ih-iKu'  .!  :u  . 

■ 

as  the  first  year  of  the  reign.  In  me  inty-a 


y  Layard,  op.'iaf.,  plates  :  ;8,  and  iio«t,  i.  'ia;  'xk-xr  rdii.  y 

:  : 

BibL,  ii,  pp,  2-9,  (c)  The  clay  tablets  are  as  follows:  1.  British  Muse 

K.  3751,  published  O  R.  67,  and  Rest,  ii,  plates  xxxv-xxvvtu,  ;.nd 

. 

lie  .ate  of  K  ,.  L,  oy  *>ft  '  rt 

i 87 1»,  'vo.  iii,  plate  i  a  ,i  accoaip  in  ag  p.noto -.-ap  .  n  .  i  >  1. 

. 

ripuons,  .nich  eon  do.  simply  ii- of  pi-  <  e.  ■  n-j  vied 
>.  2,  and  Rost,  ii,  plate  xxvii,  translated  i,  pp. 
iti  h  Mia ■-1J m,  •  > .  2649,  It  *et,  i  ,  pj a t.e  Jtxiv,  O.,  trar  > 


313- 


*  )  > 


Portion  of  a  clay  tablet,  9f  by  7  inches,  with  an 
inscription  of  Tiglathpileser  IV,  king  of  Assyria 
(745-727  B.C.),  and  generally  known  as  the  Nimroud 
tablet.  It  contains  a  mention  of  Ahaz,  king  of 
Judah,  the  first  mention  of  Judah  in  the  Assyrian 
inscriptions.  British  Museum,  K.  3751.  See  Be- 
zold’s  Catalogue  II,  page  561,  and  note  that  in  the 
Guide  to  the  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  Antiquities, 
2d  edition,  1908,  p.  59,  the  number  is  incorrectly 
given  as  K.  2751,  so  also  in  Mansell’s  Catalogue, 
p.  13 

[Photograph  by  W.  A.  Mansell  &  Co.,  London.] 


TIGLATHPILESER  IY — SHALMANESER  V  267 

first  class  consist  of  the  stone  inscriptions,  in 
which  the  events  of  the  reign  are  narrated  in 
chronological  order.  These,  the  most  important 
of  his  inscriptions,  are  in  a  bad  state  of  preser¬ 
vation  through  the  mutilations  of  Esarhaddon. 
The  second  class  of  the  inscriptions,  written  upon 
clay,  give  accounts  of  the  king’s  campaigns 
grouped  in  geographical  order;  while  the  third 
class,  also  on  clay,  give  mere  lists  of  the  coun¬ 
tries  conquered  without  details  of  any  kind. 
If  all  this  abundant  material  had  been  as 
carefully  preserved  as  the  inscriptions  of  Ashur- 
nazirpal,  we  should  be  able  to  present  a  clear 
view  of  the  entire  reign.  As  it  is,  questions 
of  order  sometimes  arise  which  render  difficult 
the  setting  forth  of  a  consecutive  narrative. 

It  was  in  the  month  of  Airu  (Iyyar)  745 
B.  C.  that  Tiglathpileser  IV  (745-727)  ascended 
the  throne.  As  the  year  had  but  just  begun, 
this  was  counted,  contrary  to  the  usual  custom, 
as  the  first  year  of  the  reign.  In  the  month 


by  Layard,  op.  cit.,  plates  17,  18,  and  Rost,  i,  plates  xxix-xxxiii.  They 
are  well  translated  by  Rost,  i,  pp.  42-53,  and  by  Schrader,  Keilinschrift. 
Bibl.,  ii,  pp.  2-9.  (c)  The  clay  tablets  are  as  follows:  1.  British  Museum, 

K.  3751,  published  II  R.  67,  and  Rost,  ii,  plates  xxxv-xxxviii,  and 
translated  by  him,  i,  pp.  54-77.  2.  British  Museum,  DT.  3,  a  du¬ 

plicate  of  K.  3751,  published  by  Schrader,  Abh.  Preuss.  Ak.  d.  W., 
1879,  No.  iii,  plate  i  and  accompanying  photograph,  and  also  by  Rost, 
ii,  plate  xxxiv.  There  is  an  English  translation  of  K.  3751  by  S.  Arthur 
Strong  in  Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series,  v,  pp.  115,  ff.  (d)  The  smaller 
inscriptions,  which  contain  simply  lists  of  places  conquered,  are:  1. 
Ill  R.  10,  No.  2,  and  Rost,  ii,  plate  xxvii,  translated  i,  pp.  84,  85,  and 
2.  British  Museum,  K.  2649,  Rost,  ii,  plate  xxiv,  C.,  transliterated  i,  p.  86. 
Selections  from  his  texts  may  be  found  in  Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels, 
pp.  313-322. 


268  HISTORY  OT  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


of  September  he  set  out  upon  his  first  campaign, 
which  was  directed  against  Babylonia.  In 
Babylonia  there  had  also  been  dull  days,  while 
the  Assyrian  power  was  dwindling  away.  After 
Marduk-balatsu-iqbi  there  reigned  Bau-akh- 
iddin,  of  whom  later  days  seemed  to  have 
preserved  no  recollection  save  that  he  was 
probably  a  contemporary  of  Shamshi-Adad  V. 
If  monuments  of  his  reign  are  still  in  existence, 
they  are  concealed  in  the  yet  unexplored  mounds 
of  his  country.  After  him  Babylonia  had 
several  kings  whose  names  as  well  as  their 
deeds  are  lost  to  us.  If  there  had  arisen  in 
Babylonia  at  that  time  a  king  such  as  the 
land  had  seen  before,  a  man  of  action  and  of 
courage,  independence  might  probably  have  been 
achieved  without  a  struggle.  But  instead  of 
that  the  kingdom  fell  into  fresh  bondage. 
The  nomadic  Aramaeans,  communities  of  whom 
had  given  so  much  trouble  to  the  Assyrians, 
had  invaded  Babylonia  from  the  south  and 
taken  possession  of  important  cities  like  Sippar 
and  Dur-Kurigalzu.  So  powerful  and  numerous 
were  they  that  they  threatened  to  engulf  the 
country  and  blot  out  the  civilization  of  Baby- 
loriia.  After  the  loss  of  two  or  three  names  we 
come  again  upon  the  name  of  Nabu-shum- 
ishkun,  who  reigned,  how  .long  we  do  not 
know,  in  this  period  of  Babylonian  decline.  He 
was  succeeded  in  747  by  Nabu-nasir,  commonly 
known  as  Nabonassar  (747-734  B.  C.).  Like 


TIGLATHPILESER  IV— SHALMANESER  V  269 


his  predecessors,  he  was  unable  to  control  the 
Aramaeans,  and  when  Tiglathpileser  IV  entered 
the  land  he  was  acclaimed  as  a  deliverer.1 
The  march  of  the  new  Assyrian  king  south¬ 
ward  had  been  a  continuous  victory.  He 
moved  east  of  the  Tigris  along  the  foothills 
of  the  mountains  of  Elam,  conquering  several 
nomadic  tribes  such  as  the  Puqudu  and  the 
Li ’tau.  He  then  turned  westward  and  attacked 
Sippar,  overcoming  its  Aramaean  intruders,  and 
doing  a  like  service  to  Dur-Kurigalzu.  He 
marched  south  as  far  as  Nippur  and  there 
turned  about.2  By  this  campaign  he  had  so 
thoroughly  disciplined  the  Aramaean  invaders 
and  overcome  all  discordant  elements  that  he 
was  able  to  give  a  new  order  of  government 
and  life  to  the  state. 

It  is  a  striking  commentary  on  the  political 
and  civil  -ability  of  this  extraordinary  man 
that  he  was  able  to  begin  a  new  order  of  ad¬ 
ministration  for  subject  territory  in  the  first 
year  of  his  reign,  and  as  a  part  of  his  first  cam¬ 
paign.  He  had  reconquered  Babylonia  as  far 
south  as  Nippur,  for  Babylonian  and  Assyrian 
control  over  it  had  practically  been  lost.  He 
was  not  satisfied  with  the  payment  of  a  heavy 
tribute,  but  reorganized  the  whole  government 

1  Some  Assyriologists  (for  example,  Tiele,  Geschichte,  pp.  217,  218; 
Rost,  Die  Keilschrifttexte  Tiglat-Pilesers  III,  i,  pp.  13,  14)  have  held 
that  Tiglathpileser  was  considered  an  enemy,  but  the  expressions  in 
his  texts  seem  to  me  to  point  to  a  pacific  reception.  So  also  Hommel 
( Geschichte ,  pp.  651,  652)  and  Winckler  {Geschichte,  pp.  121—123,  222,  223). 

2  Annals,  lines  1-25;  clay  tablet,  1-13. 


270  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


of  the  territory.  He  first  subdivided  it  into 
four  provinces,  placing  Assyrian  governors  over 
them,  and  then  built  two  cities  as  adminis¬ 
trative  centers.  The  first  of  these  was  called 
Kar-Asshur,  located  near  the  Zab.  The  name 
of  the  second  is  not  given  in  the  Annals,  but 
it  was  probably  Dur-Tukulti-apal-esharra.* 1 
These  were  made  royal  residences,  each  being 
provided  with  a  palace  for  the  king’s  occupancy. 
The  second  was  required  to  pay  the  great 
tribute  of  ten  talents  of  gold  and  one  thousand 
talents  of  silver.  In  each  the  king  set  up  a 
monument,  with  his  portrait  as  a  sign  of  the 
dominion  which  he  claimed,  and  in  both,  people 
from  the  other  conquered  districts  were  settled. 
This  plan  of  planting  colonies  and  of  trans¬ 
porting  captives  from  place  to  place  had 
indeed  been  tried  on  a  small  scale  by  other 
Assyrian  kings,  but  it  had  never  been  adopted 
as  a  fixed  and  settled  policy.  From  this  time 
onward  we  shall  meet  with  it  frequently.  Tig- 
lathpileser  IV  consistently  followed  it  during 
his  whole  reign,  trying  thereby  to  break  down 
national  feeling,  and  to  sever  local  ties  in 
order  that  the  mighty  empire  which  he  founded 
might  be  in  some  measure  homogeneous. 

When  the  Aramaean  nomads  had  been  over¬ 
come  and  the  land  had  received  its  new  order 
of  government,  the  king  offered  sacrifices  in 

1  Compare  Rost,  Keilschrifttexte  Tiglat-Pilesers  III  (Leipzig,  1893), 

i,  p.  7,  note  1. 


TIGLATHPILESER  IV— SHALMANESER  Y  271 


Sippar,  Nippur,  Babylon,  Borsippa,  and  in 
other  less  important  cities,  to  Marduk,  Bel, 
Nabu,  and  other  gods.  It  was  a  fruitful  year. 
Never  before  had  the  land  of  Babylonia  been 
brought  into  such  complete  subjection  to  As¬ 
syria.  Nabonassar  was  a  king  only  in  name; 
the  real  monarch  lived  in  Calah.  So  small 
indeed  is  his  influence  from  the  Assyrian  point 
of  view  that  he  is  not  even  mentioned  in  Tig- 
lathpileser’s  accounts  of  the  campaign;  he  is 
simply  ignored  as  though  he  was  not.  To 
such  sad  contempt  had  come  a  man  who  was 
nominally  king  of  Babylon.  Yet,  though  thus 
despised  b}^  the  Assyrian  overlord,  Nabonassar 
is  still  called  king  by  the  Babylonians,  who 
held  control  of  the  national  records.  In  them 
it  is  still  his  name,  and  not  his  conqueror’s, 
which  stands  in  the  honored  list  of  Babylon’s 
rulers. 

Having  thus  left  affairs  in  a  safe  condition 
in  the  south,  Tiglathpileser  IV  next  turned  his 
attention  to  the  troublous  lands  east  of  As¬ 
syria.  We  have  already  seen  how  frequently 
the  Assyrian  kings  had  to  invade  their  terri¬ 
tory  in  order  to  collect  the  unwillingly  paid 
tribute.  The  first  of  these  lands  to  be  invaded 
was  Namri.  The  Assyrian  people  who  lived 
along  their  own  borders  and  hence  close  to 
Namri  had  suffered  much  from  the  incursions 
of  half-barbaric  hordes  which  swept  down  from 
the  mountains  and  plundered  their  crops  and 


272  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

other  possessions.  These  movements  in  and 
through  Namri  made  up  a  situation  similar  to  that 
which  Tiglathpileser  had  just  settled  in  Baby¬ 
lonia.  The  march  through  Namri  and  thence 
northward  through  Bit-Zatti,  Bit-Abdadani,  Ar- 
ziah,  and  other  districts  to  Nishai  was  marked 
by  ruins  and  burning  heaps.  But  the  entire  cam¬ 
paign  was  not  filled  with  works  of  ruin.  The 
districts  of  Bit-Sumurzu  and  Bit-Khamban  were 
added  to  the  territory  of  Assyria  and  received 
the  benefits  of  Assyrian  government.  The  city 
of  Nikur,  which  had  been  destroyed  in  the 
beginning  of  the  campaign,  was  entirely  re¬ 
built1  and  resettled  with  colonists  brought  from 
other  conquered  lands.  This  became,  there¬ 
fore,  a  center  around  which  Assyrian  influences 
might  crystallize.  The  campaign  was  fruitful 
in  definite  results,  as  the  expeditions  of  Ashur- 
nazirpal,  seeking  only  plunder,  never  could  be. 
The  king  did  not  personally  enter  the  heart 
of  Media,  but  sent  an  army  under  command  of 
Ashur-dani-nani  to  punish  the  tribes  south 
of  the  Caspian  Sea;  but  to  follow  its  marches 
is  beyond  our  present  geographical  knowledge.2 
A  second  expedition3  into  Media  was  necessary 
in  737,  when  the  process  of  settling  colonists 
in  troublesome  districts  was  further  carried 
out.  No  such  control  over  Indo-European 
inhabitants  of  the  mountain  lands  of  Media 


1  Annals,  lines  36. 

2  Annals,  lines  26-58. 

3  Annal,  lines  157,  ff. 


TIG LATI1 PILESER  IV — SHALMANESER  V  273 


was,  however,  achieved  as  had  been  secured 
over  the  Semites  of  Babylonia,  and  Media 
remained  practically  independent  and  ready 
to  give  trouble  to  later  Assyrian  kings,  and 
even  to  have  an  important  share  in  the  break¬ 
ing  up  of  the  monarchy  which  was  now  har¬ 
rying  it. 

But  if  Tiglathpileser  was  confronted  by  a 
difficult  situation  in  Babylonia  and  a  more 
difficult  one  in  Media,  and  the  lands  between  it 
and  Assyria,  his  difficulties  may  justly  be  said 
to  have  been  colossal  when  one  views  the  state 
of  affairs  in  the  north.  As  we  have  already 
seen,  the  weakness  and  decadence  of  Assyria 
after  the  reign  of  Shalmaneser  III  had  given 
a  great  opportunity  to  Urartu,  and  kings  of 
force  and  ability  had  arisen  in  the  land  to 
seize  it.  Of  the  kings  of  Urartu  Argistis  had 
taken  from  Assyria  the  hard- won  lands  of 
Daiaeni  and  Nirbi,  and  had  overrun,  plun¬ 
dering  and  burning  the  whole  great  territory 
lying  north  of  Assyria  proper,  and  as  far  east 
as  Parsua,  east  of  Lake  Urumiyeh.1 

Great  though  these  conquests  undoubtedly 
were,  and  dangerous  as  was  the  threat  against 
Ass3^rian  power,  they  were  far  surpassed  in 
the  reign  of  Sarduris  III,2  who  succeeded  Ar¬ 
gistis,  while  Ashurdan  III  was  impotently 

1  See  the  great  historical  inscription  of  Argistis,  translated  by  Sayce, 
Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series,  vol.  iv,  pp.  117,  ff. 

2  See  Belck,  V  erhandlungen  der  Berliner  (Jesellschaft  fur  Anthropologic, 
1894,  p.  486, 


274  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

ruling  in  Assyria.  Sarduris  broke  down  and 
destroyed  the  whole  circle  of  tribute-paying 
states  dependent  upon  Assyria  in  the  north. 
His  conquests  and  annexations  to  the  king¬ 
dom  of  Urartu  or  Chaldia  continued  in  a 
westerly  direction  until  he  had  overrun  the 
most  northern  parts  of  Syria,  comprising  the 
territory  north  of  the  Taurus  and  west  of  the 
Euphrates.  He  even  claimed  the  title  of  king 
of  Suri — that  is,  of  Syria.  His  next  move  was 
the  formation  of  an  alliance  with  Matilu  of 
Agusi,  Sulumal  of  Melid,  Tarkhulara  of  Gur- 
gum,  Kushtashpi  of  Kummukh,  and  with  sev¬ 
eral  other  northern  princes,  among  them 
probably  Panammu  of  Sam’al  and  Pisiris  of 
Carchemish.  These  princes  probably  did  not 
give  a  willing  ear  to  the  solicitations  of  Sarduris 
III,  as  a  neighboring  friendly  prince,  for  a 
defensive  alliance  against  the  encroachments  of 
the  powerful  Assyrian  kingdom,  but  were  rather 
forced  into  such  an  alliance.  Accompanied  by 
these  allies,  whether  of  their  own  will  or  not, 
Sarduris  marched  against  the  west.  The  in¬ 
scriptions  which  have  come  down  to  us  render 
it  exceedingly  difficult  to  follow  perfectly  the 
movements  in  this  campaign,  but  the  following 
is  the  probable  order  and  meaning  of  them. 
At  about  the  same  time  of  Sarduris ’s  march 
westward  Tiglathpileser  also  invaded  the  west, 
directing  his  attack  against?  the  city  of  Arpad 
— the  real  key  of  the  northern  part  of  Syria. 


TIGLATHPILESER  IV—  SHALMANESER  Y  275 


It  had  belonged  to  Assyria,  as  a  tribute-paying 
state,  but  now  actually  formed  part  of  the 
new  kingdom  of  Urartu.  If  Tiglathpileser  could 
restore  it  to  his  kingdom,  he  would  make  a 
long  step  forward  in  the  restoration  of  As¬ 
syrian  prestige  in  all  the  west.  He  besieged  the 
city  and  could  probably  have  reduced  it. 
Sarduris  did  not  come  directly  to  its  aid,  but 
instead  threatened  Assyria  itself,  and  so  forced 
Tiglathpileser  to  raise  the  siege  and  return 
by  forced  marches.  On  his  return  he  crossed 
the  Euphrates,  probably  below  Til-Rarsip,  and 
then  turned  northward.  The  two  armies  met 
in  the  southeastern  part  of  Kummukh  between 
Kishtan  and  Khalpi,  and  Sarduris  was  routed, 
and  to  save  his  life  fled  on  the  back  of  a  mare.1 
A  conqueror  would  have  ridden  from  the 
field  upon  a  prancing  stallion,  for  to  ride  away 
on  mare  back  was  accounted  a  deep  disgrace 
in  the  eyes  of  men  of  different  races  and  for 
many  centuries.2 

Tiglathpileser  pursued,  destroying  as  he  went 
the  cities  of  Izzida,  Ququsanshu,  and  Khar- 
bisina,  until  he  reached  the  Euphrates  north 
of  Amid.3  Here  the  pursuit  ended,  for  he 
did  not  cross  the  river,  whether  because  he 

1  Second  Nimroud  Tablet,  lines  50,  ff. 

2  For  the  depth  of  this  disgrace  see  Lehmann,  Verhandlungen  der 
Berliner  Gesellschaft  fur  Anthropologie,  1896,  p.  325,  who  there  also 
compares  Wilamovitz,  Aristoteles  und  Athen,  p.  50,  note  1,  and  Kaibel, 
Stil  und  Text  der  Politeia  Athenaion  des  Aristoteles ,  p.  138. 

3  Annals,  lines  59-73.  See  Rost,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  12-15,  and,  for  the 
parallel  accounts,  also  pp.  50-53,  and  66-69. 


276  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


thought  his  purpose  fully  accomplished  or  be¬ 
cause  his  army  was  too  weak  for  the  venture 
we  do  not  know. 

The  result  of  this  conflict  was  overpowering, 
and  its  direct  consequences  are  to  be  seen  in 
the  next  three  campaigns.  From  Sarduris  the 
Assyrians  took  a  great  mass  of  spoil  in  camp 
equipage  and  in  costly  stuffs  and  precious 
metals,  together  with  a  large  number  of  cap¬ 
tives.  In  the  enumeration  of  these  trophies 
there  is  probably  gross  exaggeration,  but  there 
is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  truth  of  the  main 
fact  that  a  very  great  victory  was  won.  The 
moral  effect  of  it  was  far  more  important 
than  all  the  gain  in  treasure.  The  allies  of 
Sarduris  at  once  sent  presents  and  tribute  to 
Tiglathpileser,  and  the  entire  Syrian  country 
was  once  more  opened  to  Assyrian  invasion 
without  fear  of  opposition  from  Urartu.  There 
is  a  curious  parallel  in  all  this  to  the  resistance 
offered  by  Damascus  and  its  allies  to  Shal¬ 
maneser  III.1  As  soon  as  the  alliance  which 
Ben-Hadad  II  had  formed  lost  its  cohesiveness 
Syria  was  speedily  ravaged  by  Shalmaneser.2 
In  the  latter  case  a  most  promising  alliance 
had  been  formed  under  the  leadership  of  Sar¬ 
duris.  If  the  selfish  commercial  interests  of 
the  Phoenicians  could  have  been  laid  aside, 
and  if  the  Syrian  states  had  once  more  heartily 


1  See  above,  pp.  229,  ff. 

2  See  pp.  232,  ff. 


TIGLATHPILESER  IV— SHALMANESER  V  277 


united,  the  Assyrians  would  have  been  easily 
overcome  and  the  west  saved  from  all  imme¬ 
diate  danger  of  Assyrian  invasion.  But  these 
petty  unions,  which  dissolved  after  the  striking 
of  one  blow,  were  more  harmful  than  useful. 
By  them  the  Assyrians  were  only  maddened, 
and  their  natural  thirst  for  booty  and  com¬ 
mercial  expansion  increased  to  a  passion.  The 
cities  which  participated  in  the  alliances  were 
ruthlessly  destroyed  in  revenge,  and  fertile 
countries  laid  waste. 

In  the  next  year  (742  B.  C.)  Tiglathpileser, 
free,  temporarily  at  least,  from  fear  of  inter¬ 
ference  from  Urartu,1  undertook  the  reduc¬ 
tion  of  Arpad.  He  could  make  no  further 
gains  in  Syria  until  that  city  was  overcome, 
for  the  rich  cities  along  the  Mediterranean 
could  not  be  expected  to  fear  the  Assyrians 
and  to  pay  tribute  so  long  as  a  city  smaller 
in  size  and  nearer  to  Assyria  held  out  against 
the  eastern  power.  We  know  nothing  of  the 
details  of  the  siege.  It  was  prolonged  in  a 
most  surprising  fashion,  for  Arpad  did  not 
fall  until  740.  Our  ignorance  of  the  two  years’ 
siege  probably  spares  us  the  knowledge  of 

1  Sarduris  was  not  strong  enough  to  leave  his  mountain  passes.  His 
relation  to  all  these  attacks  of  the  Assyrians  has  been  finely  treated 
in  detail  by  Belck  and  Lehmann  (“Chaldische  Forschungen”  in  Ver- 
handlungen  der  Berl.  anthrop.  Gesell.,  1895,  pp.  325-336).  It  is  to  be 
noted  that  later  these  two  scholars  were  moved  to  modify  somewhat 
the  too  strong  expressions  here  mentioned  and  to  see  that  Sarduris 
was  not  destroyed,  but  biding  his  time  and  that  his  spirit  survived  in 
the  defense  of  Arpad.  ( Verhandlungen ,  etc.,  1896,  p.  326.) 


278  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

barbarous  scenes,  of  the  slaughter  of  helpless 
women  and  children,  of  the  flaying  of  men 
alive,  and  of  the  impaling  of  others  on  stakes 
about  the  city  walls.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  a  city  which  had  so  long  resisted  the  great 
god  Ashur,  and  the  king  whom  he  had  sent, 
would  come  off  lightly.  The  fall  of  Arpad 
was  the  signal  for  the  prompt  appearance 
before  Tiglathpileser  of  messengers  from  nearly 
all  the  neighboring  states  with  presents  of 
gold  and  silver,  of  ivory,  and  of  purple  robes. 
In  the  city  of  Arpad  he  received  these  gifts, 
and  with  them  the  homage  of  all  the  west, 
which  would  endure  any  amount  of  shame  and 
ignominy,  and  desired  oniy  to  be  left  alone. 
One  state  only  sent  no  presents  and  offered 
no  homage.  Tutammu,  king  of  Unqi,  alone 
dared  to  resist  Assyria.  Unqi  was  at  this  time 
but  a  small  state  probably  nearly  coterminous 
with  the  state  of  Khattin,  between  the  Afrin 
and  the  Orontes.1  Tiglathpileser  at  once  in¬ 
vaded  his  country  and  took  the  capital,  Kinalia, 
which  was  utterly  destroyed.  The  defiant  king 
was  taken  prisoner,  and  his  little  kingdom, 
provided  with  Assyrian  governors,2  was  made 
a  part  of  the  Assyrian  empire  which  Tiglath¬ 
pileser  was  now  forming.  This  little  episode 
furnished  a  new  point  to  the  moral  of  Arpad 

-  a 

1  Compare  Tompkins  (Bab.  and  Orient.  Record,  iii,  6)  for  identification 
of  Unqi  with  Amq,  and  see  Rost  ( Tiglathpileser ,  i,  p.  xxi,  note  1)  for 
the  extent  of  Unqi.  Compare  also  Schiffer,  Die  Aramder,  pp.  60,  61. 

2  Annals,  lines  92-101. 


TIGLATHPILESER  IY— SHALMANESER  V  279 

which  would  not  be  lost  on  the  other  states 
of  Syria. 

The  west  had  been  severely  punished  and 
might  be  left  to  meditation  for  a  time.  In  739 
Tiglathpileser  set  out  to  win  back  to  Assyria 
a  part  of  the  lands  of  Nairi  which  had  fallen 
under  the  control  of  Urartu.  We  have  no 
accounts  of  the  campaign,  and  know  only  that 
Ulluba  and  Kilkhi,  two  districts  of  Nairi,  were 
taken.  These  were  not  plundered  according 
to  the  former  fashion,  but  actually  incorporated 
with  Assyria,  and  provided  with  an  Assyrian 
governor,  who  made  his  residence  in  the  lately 
built  city  of  Asshur-iqisha.  Another  campaign 
against  the  same  districts  was  made  in  736 
B.  C.  This  carried  the  conquests  up  to  Mount 
Nal,  and  so  to  the  very  borders  of  Urartu.  It 
is  perfectly  clear  that  both  these  campaigns 
were  but  preparatory  to  an  invasion  of  Urartu, 
which  was  plainly  already  planned  and  soon 
to  be  attempted.  These  two  campaigns  were 
meant  only  to  weaken  the  southern  defenses 
of  Urartu.  Perhaps  the  king,  even  in  739 
or  in  738,  would  have  attempted  to  follow  up 
the  victories  which  he  had  gained  but  for  the 
breaking  out  of  rebellions  in  Syria  and  along 
the  Phoenician  coast.  The  whole  development 
of  Assyrian  policy  with  reference  to  Syria  and 
Palestine  is  so  intensely  interesting  for  many 
reasons  that  it  is  unfortunate  that  we  are  left 
with  such  fragmentary  lines  at  the  very  point 


280  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

in  the  Annals  where  the  events  of  this  im¬ 
portant  year  are  narrated.  We  must  again 
resort  to  conjecture  for  the  defining  of  the 
order  of  events,  though  the  main  facts  are 
clear  enough. 

Among  the  princes  and  kings  who  formed  a 
combination  to  refuse  to  pay  Assyrian  tribute 
and  to  resist  its  collection  by  force,  if  necessary, 
Azariah,  of  Ja’udi  (Yaudi)1  seems  to  have 
been  very  influential,  if  not  an  actual  leader 
exercising  a  sort  of  hegemony  over  the  other 
states  of  Palestine  and  Syria.  To  support 
him  the  states  of  Hamath,  Damascus,  Kum- 
mukh,  Tyre,  Gebal,  Que,  Melid,  Carchemish, 
Samaria,  and  others  to  the  total  number  of 
nineteen  had  banded  together.  It  was  cer¬ 
tainly  a  most  promising  coalition.  If  the 
forces  which  these  states  were  able  to  put 
into  the  field  were  brought  together  and  beaten 
into  warlike  shape  by  a  leader  of  men  and  a 
skillful  soldier,  there  was  good  reason  to  hope 

1  The  name  Azariah  corresponds  exactly  with  the  name  of  Azariah, 
King  of  Judah  (2  Kings  xv,  1,  2),  and  the  name  “Ja’udi,”  “Yaudi,” 
corresponds  well  with  Judah.  It  was  therefore  quite  natural,  that, 
as  they  were  contemporaneous,  the  King  Azariah  of  these  inscriptions 
should  be  accepted  as  the  Azariah  (Uzziah)  of  Judah;  so  Schrader 
argued  ( Keilinschriften  und  Geschichtsforschung,  pp.  395-421),  and 
so  scholars  generally  agreed,  as  I  also  did  myself  in  former  editions 
of  this  work  (ii,  pp.  119,  ff.).  It  is  now  clear  that  this  was  incorrect. 
The  land  here  referred  to  is  a  district  of  Sam’al  (Zenjirli)  of  which 
Panammu  was  king,  whose  inscription,  found  at  Zenjirli,  repeatedly 
invokes  the  gods  of  Ja’udi  ( Ausgrabungen  in  Sendschirli  I,  Mitteilungen 
aus  den  Orientalischen  Sammlungen,  Konigl.  Museen  zu  Berlin,  Heft  xi, 
Berlin,  1893,  pp.  64,  70).  The  credit  of  perceiving  these  facts  belongs 
in  the  first  instance  to  Winckler,  Altorientalische  Forschimgen  /,  p.  i, 
Das  Syrische  Land  Jaudi  und  der  angebliche  Azarja  von  Juda. 


TIGLATHPILESER  IV— SHALMANESER  V  281 


for  an  annihilation  of  the  army  of  Tiglath- 
pileser.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
Azariah  was  equal  to  the  task,  colossal  though 
it  was,  if  he  had  a  loyal  support  from  his  allies, 
and  if  all  would  make  common  cause  against 
their  oppressor.  We  can  only  watch  and  see 
the  end  of  effectual  opposition  to  Assyria 
through  the  weakness  of  some  members  of  this 
alliance.  Tiglathpileser  came  west,  and,  pass¬ 
ing  by  the  countries  of  some  of  the  allies,  started 
southward  into  Palestine.  As  soon  as  he 
entered  Samaria,  Menahem,  the  king,  threw 
down  his  arms  and  paid  to  the  Assyrians  one 
thousand  talents  of  silver  as  a  token  of  his 
acknowledgment  of  subjection.1  We  do  not 
know  all  the  reasons  for  this  move.  It  may 
have  been  necessary  in  order  to  save  the  land 
from  utter  destruction  if  no  assistance  could 
be  secured  elsewhere.  But  it  looks  at  this 
distance,  and  on  the  surface,  like  an  act  of 
cowardice  and  a  betrayal  of  the  oath  of  con¬ 
federation.  The  weakness  or  the  blundering,  or 
both,  in  all  these  western  alliances  becomes 
more  evident  in  every  successive  campaign. 
It  might  well  be  supposed  that  the  dread  of 
national  extinction  which  had  been  threatened 
in  every  successive  Assyrian  invasion  would 
have  overcome  the  weakness,  and  long  use 
undone  the  blundering.  On  the  payment  of 
this  tribute  Tiglathpileser  abandoned  the  at- 


1  2  Kings  xv,  19,  20.  In  this  passage  Tiglathpileser  is  called  Pul. 


282  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


tack  on  Israel  and  began  to  conquer,  probably 
one  by  one,  the  districts  which  had  joined  in 
the  union  for  defense.  We  have  no  full  account 
of  this  overwhelming  campaign.  One  city  only, 
with  the  name  of  Kullani,1  is  specifically  men¬ 
tioned  as  being  captured,  though  the  extent 
of  territory  actually  occupied  was  so  extensive 
that  many  must  have  been  taken.  The  whole 
country,  from  Unqi  and  Arpad  on  the  one 
side  and  Damascus  and  the  Lebanon  on  the 
other,  and  on  to  the  Mediterranean  coast,  was 
added  to  Assyrian  territory  and  provided  with 
an  Assyrian  governor.  In  this  territory  the 
colonizing  plans  of  Tiglathpileser  were  applied 
on  an  extensive  scale.  Into  it  thirty  thousand 
colonists  were  brought  from  the  lands  of  Ulluba 
and  Kilkhi,  conquered  in  739,  while  thousands 
were  carried  out  of  it  to  supply  the  places 
left  vacant  by  the  exiles.  When  Tiglathpileser 
turned  his  face  homeward  he  carried  with  him 
a  heavy  treasure,  in  which  were  mingled  the 
tributes  of  Kushtashpi  of  Kummukh,  Rezin  of 
Damascus,  Menahem  of  Samaria,  Jehoahaz  of 
Judah,  Sibittibi’li  of  Gebal,  Urikki  of  Que,  Pisiris 
of  Carchemish,  Enilu  of  Hamath,  Panammu  of 
Sam’al,  Tarkhulara  of  Gurgum,  Sulumal  of 
Melid,  Dadilu  of  Kask,  Uassurme  of  Tabal, 

1  The  modern  Kullanhou,  Ideated  about  six  miles  from  Tell  Arfad 
(Arpad).  It  appears  in  Isa.  x,  9  in  the  form  Calno  and  in  Amos  vi,  2 
is  called  Calneh.  See  Gray  ( Isaiah ,  International  Critical  Commen¬ 
tary)  and  Driver  ( Joel  and  Amos,  Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools)  on  the 
passages. 


TIGLATHPILESER  IV— SHALMANESER  Y  283 


Ushkhitti  of  Tuna,  Urballa  of  Tukhan,  Tuk- 
hammi  of  Ishtunda,  Urimmi  of  Khubishna,1 
and  of  Queen  Zabibi  of  Arabia.  It  is  a  roll 
not  of  honor,  but  of  dishonor,  and  Azariah 
might  well  have  been  proud  that  his  name 
does  not  appear  upon  it.  Capacity  and  courage, 
with  some  national  spirit  and  patriotism,  in 
even  a  few  of  these  might  have  saved  the 
country,  or  at  least  postponed  the  evil  day 
of  its  undoing. 

While  these  events  were  happening  in  the 
west  the  policy  of  Tiglathpileser  was  receiving- 
in  the  east  signal  proofs  of  its  wisdom.  Among 
the  Aramaeans  east  of  the  Tigris  certain  com¬ 
munities  rose  in  rebellion  against  Assyria.  Un¬ 
der  the  old  regime  such  an  uprising  near  the 
capital  would  have  caused  the  liveliest  concern. 
The  king  would  have  hurried  home  from  his 
labors  in  the  west  and  himself  have  quelled  the 
rebellion.  But  Tiglathpileser  had  provided  the 
rudiments  of  a  system  of  provincial  government. 
We  have  already  seen  how  ready  he  was  at 
the  very  beginning  of  his  reign  to  set  up  pro¬ 
vincial  governors  with  powers  of  administra¬ 
tion  over  certain  definite  districts,  and  with 
force  sufficient  to  maintain  order.  They  were 
now  responsible  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
portion  of  the  empire  under  their  immediate 
control,  and  well  they  knew  that  they  would 

1  These,  and  others,  are  all  enumerated  on  the  Nimroud  Tablet 
(II  R.  67),  lines  57-63.  Transliterated  and  translated  anew  in  Rogers, 
Cuneiform  Parallels,  p.  322. 


284  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

be  held  to  a  strict  accounting  for  their  work. 
On  the  old  method  perhaps  all  that  he  had 
gained  in  the  west  would  have  been  lost  and 
all  the  work  would  have  had  to  be  begun  again. 
In  this  instance,  however,  the  Assyrian  govern¬ 
ors  of  Lullume  and  of  Nairi,  at  the  heads  of 
armies,  invaded  the  rebellious  district  and  put 
down  the  uprising  with  the  utmost  severity. 
When  this  was  accomplished  there  was  another 
display  of  colonizing  activity  on  a  colossal 
scale.  From  these  turbulent  districts  men 
were  deported  and  settled  at  Kinalia,  the  cap¬ 
ital  of  Unqi,  while  others  were  settled  in  various 
parts  of  the  new  province  of  Syria.1 

In  735  the  time  had  fully  come  for  the  effort 
to  break  down  the  kingdom  of  Urartu  (Chaldia). 
We  have  seen  how  carefully  this  campaign  was 
planned,  and  how  Tiglathpileser  worked  up  to 
it.  Unfortunately  the  Annals  are  not  pre¬ 
served  in  which  the  story  of  the  campaign 
was  told,  and  we  must  rely  again  upon  the 
looser  statements  of  his  other  inscriptions. 
With  very  little  opposition  Tiglathpileser  pen¬ 
etrated  the  country  up  to  the  gates  of  the 
capital  city,  Turuspa  (Van).  Here  the  people 
of  Urartu  struck  a  blow,  but  were  defeated 
and  forced  to  withdraw  within  the  walls. 
Tiglathpileser  began  a  siege,  but  could  not 
reduce  the  city  because  he  had  no  navy  with 
which  to  attack  or  blockade  on  the  lake  side, 


1  Annals,  lines  134-15U. 


TIGLATHPILESER  IY— SHALMANESER  V  285 

and  so  could  not  starve  it  into  submission. 
It  was  also  so  well  fortified  on  the  land  side 
that  he  was  unable  to  carry  it  by  assault.  While 
engaged  in  the  siege  he  sent  an  army  through 
the  country,  which  made  its  way  as  far  as 
Mount  Birdashu,  the  location  of  which  is  not 
known.  This  expedition  destroyed  a  number 
of  cities  on  the  Euphrates  and  plundered  the 
inhabitants. 

After  some  ineffectual  fighting  about  the 
capital  Tiglathpileser  raised  the  siege  and  de¬ 
parted.  He  had  not  succeeded  in  adding  the 
kingdom  of  Urartu  to  Assyria,  but  he  had 
broken  its  spirit,  and  we  hear  no  more  of  its 
power  and  defiance  for  some  years.  The  gain 
to  Tiglathpileser  by  the  campaign  was  the 
removing  of  all  danger  of  a  flank  movement 
from  the  north  when  he  was  engaged  in  carry¬ 
ing  out  his  plans  in  the  west,  where  his  work 
was  still  unfinished.  In  734  we  find  him  again 
on  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean,  having 
probably  crossed  the  plains  of  Syria  near 
Damascus  and  go’ne  straight  to  the  coast, 
which  he  followed  southward.  He  had  no  fear 
of  an  attack  in  the  rear  from  Tyre  and  Sidon, 
busily  absorbed  in  sending  out  their  merchant 
ships.  It  appears  probable  that  the  first  city 
attacked  was  Ashdod  or  Ekron,  which  was 
easily  taken,  and  then  Gaza  was  approached. 
The  king  of  Gaza  at  this  time  was  Hanno 
(Khanunu),  who  had  no  desire  to  meet  the 


286  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


Assyrian  conqueror,  and  therefore  fled  to  Egypt, 
leaving  the  city  to  stand  if  it  were  attacked. 
He  hoped  to  secure  the  help  of  the  Egyptians 
in  opposing  the  Assyrian  advance.  Again 
selfishness  interfered  with  the  placing  of  a 
stone  in  the  way  of  Assyrian  progress.  If  the 
Egyptians  had  had  any  wise  conception  of 
the  situation  in  western  Asia  at  this  period, 
they  would  have  seen  that  the  very  highest 
self-interest  demanded  the  giving  of  help  to 
the  weak  city  of  Gaza.  Gaza  was  the  last 
fortified  city  on  the  way  to  Egypt  from  the 
north.  It  would  serve  well  as  a  place  for  the 
defense  of  the  Egyptian  borders,  for  who 
could  say,  after  the  events  of  the  past  few 
years,  when  Tiglathpileser  IV  would  plan  to 
attack  Egypt?  Indeed,  who  could  say  that 
this  man,  who  planned  so  far  in  advance  of 
events,  had  not  already  purposed  an  invasion 
of  the  land  of  the  Nile?  One  by  .one  the  coali¬ 
tions  formed  against  him  in  Syria  had  been 
broken  down.  A  wise  policy  in  Egypt  would 
have  aided  these  combinations  in  order  to 
keep  a  buffer  state,  or  a  series  of  them,  between 
Egypt  and  the  ever-widening  power  of  Assyria. 
It  was  too  late  for  that.  All  but  Judah  were 
paying  a  regular  tribute  to  Assyria.  The  last 
outpost  on  the  coast — the  city  of  Gaza — was 
now  threatened.  It  was  surely  well  to  make 
a  stand  here,  and  it  would  probably  have  been 
easy  to  inspire  in  Judah,  or  even  in  Damascus 


TIGLATHPILESER  IY— SHALMANESER  V  287 

and  Hamath,  the  enthusiasm  for  another  at¬ 
tempt  against  the  Assyrians.  But  Gaza  was 
foolishly  left  to  its  fate,  and  that  was  easy 
to  foresee.  The  city  was  taken ;  its  goods 
and  its  gods  were  taken  away  to  Assyria.  In 
its  royal  palace  Tiglathpileser  set  up  his  throne 
and  his  image  in  stone  in  token  of  another 
land  added  to  Assyria.  A  native  prince  was 
appointed  as  a  puppet  king,  whose  chief  con¬ 
cern  must  have  been  the  collection  of  the 
heav}^  annual  tribute  for  Assyria.  The  wor¬ 
ship  of  the  god  Ashur  was  introduced  along 
with  that  of  the  other  gods  native  to  the  place.1 
One  only  of  the  methods  of  Tiglathpileser  for 
the  engrafting  of  a  new  state  into  his  empire 
seems  not  to  have  been  exhibited — there  was 
no  colonization.  The  capture  of  Gaza  seems 
but  a  small  result  for  the  campaigns  of  a  year, 
for  the  taking  of  Ashkelon  and  Ekron,  with 
places  like  Ri’raba,  Ri’sisu,  Gal’za,  and  Abil- 
akka,  can  scarcely  be  counted  as  of  much 
moment.  In  reality,  however,  the  place  was 
a  very  important  outpost  for  Assyria.  It 
would  have  been  important  for  Egypt  in  the 
cause  of  defense,  it  was  no  less  important 
for  Assyria  in  the  cause  of  offense,  and  we 
shall  see  shortly  that  it  was  thus  used,  and 
very  effectively. 

Tiglathpileser  had  now  disposed  of  the  sea- 


1  The  inscription  material  for  this  campaign  is  badly  preserved. 
The  chief  source  is  III  It.  No.  2,  lines  8-11.  See,  for  valuable  dis¬ 
cussion  of  the  order  of  the  campaign,  Rost,  Tvjlathpileser,  i,  pp.  xxviii,  ff. 


288  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


coast  and  would  be  ready  and  free  to  attend 
to  the  reduction  of  the  inland  hill  country 
of  Palestine,  which  he  had  long  been  coveting. 
His  plans  had  been  well  laid,  and  thus  far 
admirably  executed.  He  might  safely  have 
hoped  for  complete  success  as  the  direct  result 
of  his  own  prudence  and  skill,  and  without 
external  assistance  of  any  kind.  But  assist¬ 
ance  he  was  to  have  through  the  tactless  blun¬ 
dering  of  those  who  ought  to  have  opposed 
him.  Affairs  were  now  in  a  very  different 
state  in  Palestine  and  in  Syria  from  that  in 
which  they  had  been  when  his  last  attempt 
had  been  made,  when  Azariah,  king  of  Yaudi, 
had  offered  a  manly  and  most  promising  re¬ 
sistance.  Uzziah,  king  of  Judah,  had  died  in 
736,  and  his  son,  Jotham,  had  ruled  only  two 
pitiful  years  and  then  left  a  weakened  king¬ 
dom  to  Ahaz,  who  was  only  a  boy  when 
he  ascended  the  throne.  It  would  have 
been  no  difficult  task  for  Pekah,  king  of 
Samaria,  and  Rezin,  king  of  Damascus,  to 
show  him  the  need  of  a  new  alliance  against 
Assyria. 

We  have  paused  often  before  over  these 
diminishing  opportunities  for  union  against  As¬ 
syria.  It  is  well  for  the  entire  understanding 
of  the  situation  that  we  pause  again  at  this 
point.  Ahaz  was  a  weakling — of  that  the 
sequel  leaves  no  doubt  whatever;  but  he  was 
also  stiff-necked  and  unwilling  to  take  counsel, 


TIGLATHPILESER  IV— SHALMANESER  V  289 


however  excellent.  The  wisdom  of  the  prophet 
Isaiah,  who  was  also  an  acute  statesman,  was 
lost  on  him.  But  in  the  nature  of  the  case  a 
man  who,  like  him,  gave  little  heed  to  the 
religion  of  Jehovah  would  be  less  likely  to 
listen  to  a  prophet’s  words  than  to  the  words 
of  foreign  kings.  His  introduction  of  the  man¬ 
ners,  customs,  and  worship  of  foreign  nations 
shows  howT  open  he  was  to  outside  influences.1 
Coward  though  he  was  personally,  he  was 
king  of  a  land  with  great  resources  for  de¬ 
fensive  war,  as  had  been  sufficiently  shown. 
The  way  was  again  open  for  alliances  which 
should  include  at  least  Damascus,  Israel,  and 
Judah.  But  the  people  of  Damascus  and  of 
Israel  were  blind  to  all  these  opportunities, 
and  saw  only  an  opportunity  for  present  per¬ 
sonal  gain,  Menahem  was  dead,  or  his  pre¬ 
vious  experience  with  Tiglathpileser  might  have 
restrained  his  people  from  folly.  His  son, 
Pekahiah,  was  also  dead,  after  a  reign  of  only 
two  years,  and  a  usurper,  Pekah,  was  on  the 
throne  in  Samaria.  Rezin  still  reigned  in 
Damascus.  These  two  saw  in  the  youth  and 
inexperience  of  Ahaz  a  chance  for  revenge  upon 
Judah  and  the  enrichment  of  their  own  king¬ 
doms.  They  united  their  forces  and  invaded 
Judah.  So  began  the  Syro-Ephraimitic  war. 
They  marched  apparently  south  on  the  east 

1  2  Kings  xvi,  10,  and  compare  2  Kings  xxiii,  12.  (There  is  a  textual 
difficulty  in  the  latter  passage.  See  Benzinger,  Commentary  on  the 
verse.  Compare  also  Skinner,  Barnes  and  Burney.) 


290  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


side  of  Jordan,  and  first  took  Elath,1  which 
Uzziah  had  added  to  the  kingdom  of  Judah, 
and  so  greatly  increased  its  commercial  pros¬ 
perity.  From  Elath  they  went  northward,  in¬ 
tending  to  attack  Jerusalem  itself  and  overcome 
Judah  at  the  very  center. 

The  situation  was  a  terrible  one  for  Ahaz. 
He  would  never  be  able  to  hold  out  single- 
handed  against  such  foes.  To  whom  should 
he  turn  for  help?  There  was  no  help  in  Egypt, 
for  Egypt  had  not  extended  help  to  Hanno, 
and  was  now  absorbed  in  a  life-and-death 
struggle  with  Ethiopia.  There  was  an  Assyrian 
party  at  his  court  which  urged  him  to  lean 
upon  Tiglathpileser.  His  wisest  counselor  was 
Isaiah,  but  Isaiah  he  would  not  hear,  and  so 
he  sent  an  embassy  to  meet  Tiglathpileser 
and  sue  for  help  against  the  Syro-Ephraimitic 
combination.  To  get  the  necessary  gifts  for 
the  winning  of  favor  he  stripped  the  temple 
and  emptied  his  own  treasure-house.2  We  do 
not  know  where  the  embassy  met  the  Assyrian, 
though  it  was  probably  at  some  point  in  Syria. 
The  gifts  were  presented,  and  Tiglathpileser  at 
once  promised  his  help  to  Ahaz.  It  is  a  marvel¬ 
ous  story  of  blindness,  folly,  and  mismanage¬ 
ment  on  the  one  side  and  of  almost  fiendish 
wisdom  and  cunning  on  the  other.  All  these 
plans  of  Damascus  and  Israel  to  plunder  and 


1  2  Kings  xvi,  6. 

2  2  Kings  xvi,  7,ff. 


TIGLATHPILESER  IV— SHALMANESER  V  291 


divide  Judah  had  played  into  the  hands  of 
Assyria.  As  soon  as  Tiglathpileser  offered  his 
first  threat  against  Damascus  and  Israel  the 
two  allies  left  Judah  and  went  northward. 
The  danger  to  Jerusalem  was  therefore  ended 
for  the  time,  but  the  trouble  for  the  rest  of 
the  country  was  only  begun.  The  troops  of 
Damascus  and  Israel  were  not  withdrawn  from 
Judah  in  order  to  oppose  Tiglathpileser  with 
united  front,  but  each  army  withdrew  into 
its  own  territory,  there  to  await  the  pleasure 
of  Tiglathpileser.  He  decided  to  attack  Sa¬ 
maria  first,  and  in  733  the  attempt  was  made. 
Tiglathpileser  came  down  the  seacoast  past  the 
tributary  states  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  and  turned 
into  the  plain  of  Esdraelon  above  Carmel. 
His  own  accounts  fail  us  at  this  point,  but 
the  biblical  narrative  fills  up  the  gap  by  the 
statement  that  he  took  Ijon,  Abel-Beth-Ma’aka, 
Janoah,  Qedesh,  and  Hazor,  together  with 
Gilead,  Galilee,  and  the  whole  land  of  Naph- 
tali.1  It  might  be  expected  that  he  would 
now  attack  Samaria  itself  and  perhaps  slay 
the  king.  He  was  relieved  of  this  by  a  party 
of  assassins  who  slew  Pekah,  and  then  pre¬ 
sented  Hoshea  to  be  made  king  in  his  place 
and  to  be  subject  to  him.2 

1  2  Kings  xv,  29. 

2  2  Kings  xv,  30.  Tiglathpileser ’s  own  brief  reference  to  the  matter 
is  in  these  words:  “As  Pekah,  their  king,  they  had  deposed,  Hosea  I 
established  as  king  over  them.  Ten  talents  of  gold  .  .  .  talents  of  silver 
I  received  as  a  present  from  them.”  Small  Ins.  I,  lines  17,  ff.  (Ill  R. 
10,  No.  2).  Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels,  p.  321. 


292  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


This  completed  the  subjection  of  Israel,  and 
Tiglathpileser  was  now  able  to  turn  to  the  far 
greater  task  of  overcoming  Damascus.  Rezin 
was  not  discomfited  by  the  conquest  of  Israel, 
and  trusted  that  the  army  of  Damascus,  which 
had  so  glorious  a  record  of  bravery  and  vic¬ 
tory,  might  triumph  again.  He  met  Tiglath¬ 
pileser  on  the  field  of  battle  and  was  defeated, 
escaping  very  narrowly  himself.  The  only 
thing  that  remained  was  to  shut  himself  up 
in  Damascus  and  withstand  the  siege  if  possible. 
He  was  soon  beleaguered,  with  the  most  terri¬ 
ble  devastation  of  the  entire  country  about 
Damascus.  Tiglathpileser  boasts  that  he  de¬ 
stroyed  at  this  time  five  hundred  and  ninety- 
one  cities,  whose  inhabitants,  numbering  thou¬ 
sands,  were  carried  away,  with  all  their 
possessions,  to  Assyria.  At  about  the  same 
time,  and  very  probably  during  the  progress 
of  the  tedious  siege,  Tiglathpileser  sent  an 
army  into  northern  Arabia.  A  queen  of  Arabia, 
Zabibi,  had  paid  him  tribute  in  738,  but  since 
then  we  have  no  hint  that  he  received  anything 
more.  Samsi  was  now  queen,  and  she  refused 
to  pay  any  tribute  and  retired  before  the 
army,  attempting  to  entice  the  Assyrians  into 
the  heart  of  the  country.  When  at  last  she 
was  overtaken  and  forced  to  fight  the  As¬ 
syrians  were  victorious;  Samsi  was  conquered 
and  plundered  of  vast  numbers  of  camels  and 
oxen.  An  Assyrian  governor  was  then  left  to 


TIGLATHPILESER  IV— SHALMANESER  V  293 


watch  her  payment  of  tribute,  though  she  was 
permitted  to  manage  her  own  kingdom  as 
she  willed.  The  effect  of  this  victory  was 
almost  magical.  From  nearly  the  entire  land 
of  Arabia  even  as  far  south  as  the  kingdom  of 
the  Sabseans  deputations  came  bearing  costly 
gifts  for  Tiglathpileser.  This  expedition  pro¬ 
duced  little  of  permanent  value  for  the  Assyrian 
empire,  but  was  for  the  time,  at  least,  a  means 
of  adding  to  the  imperial  income.  At  the 
same  time  tribute  was  received  from  Ash- 
kelon,  as  a  sign  that  that  hardy  little  state 
desired  good  relations  with  the  conqueror. 

At  length,  about  the  end  of  732,  Damascus 
fell  into  the  hands  of  Tiglathpileser  IV,  and 
the  last  hope  of  the  west  was  gone.  Rezin 
was  killed  by  his  conqueror.1  Tiglathpileser 
set  up  his  throne  in  the  city  which  had  so 
long  and  so  bravely,  although  with  so  much 
unwisdom,  withstood  him  and  his  predecessors. 
Well  might  he  make  merry  within  its  walls, 
and  receive  royal  honors  and  imperial  homage 
at  the  end  of  so  long  and  bitter  a  struggle. 
Ahaz  of  Judah  came  and  visited  him  there, 
paying  honor  to  the  foreign  conqueror  who  had 
indeed  saved  him  from  Syria  and  Israel,  but 
whose  people  could  never  rest  satisfied  while 
Judah  was  only  a  tribute-paying  dependency  and 
not  actually  a  part  of  the  empire.  It  is  prob- 

1  2  Kings  xvi,  9.  A  broken  tablet  alluding  to  the  death  of  Rezin 
was  discovered  by  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson  (“Assyrian  Discovery,” 
Athenaeum ,  1862,  ii,  p.  246),  but  it  has  since  disappeared. 


294  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

able  that  other  princes  also  paid  him  honor 
here,  as  they  had  done  before.  Tiglathpileser 
had  no  need  to  invade  the  west  again.  He  had 
carried  the  borders  of  Assyria  far  beyond  any 
of  his  predecessors  in  that  direction.  By  his 
colonizing  methods  he  had  begun  the  assimila¬ 
tion  of  divers  populations  into  one  common 
whole.  He  had  extended  the  field  of  operations 
for  Assyrian  commerce  all  the  way  across 
Mesopotamia  and  Syria  to  the  Phoenician  cities. 
Had  his  people  been  native  to  the  seacoast, 
he  might  have  undertaken  to  snatch  the  com¬ 
merce  of  the  Mediterranean.  But  there  was 
no  need  for  that  in  his  time.  Some  problems 
and  difficulties  must  be  left  for  the  future  to 
solve. 

While  this  long  series  of  campaigns  was  in 
progress  in  the  west  Babylonia  was  first  peace¬ 
ful  and  then  disturbed.  In  one  sense  the 
Assyrian  protectorate,  while  it  oppressed  the 
native  sense  of  dignity  and  independence,  was 
a  great  blessing.  It  delivered  the  people  from 
the  need  of  a  great  standing  army,  and  gave 
them  a  sense  of  security  without  it.  The  reign 
of  Nabonassar  was  an  age  of  literary  activity, 
especially  manifested  in  the  study  of  history 
and  chronology,  and  the  leisure  for  such  study 
was  won  by  Assyrian  arms.  In  estimating 
the  reign  of  Tiglathpileser  this  must  not  be 
left  out  of  the  account. 

With  the  end  of  the  reign  of  Nabonassar, 


TIGLATHPI LESEH  IV— SHALMANESER  V  295 


in  733,  the  period  of  peace  abruptly  closed,  .if, 
indeed,  there  had  not  been  disturbances  before 
that  time.  He  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Nabu- 
nadinzer  (733-732),  who  was  slain  by  a  usurper, 
Nabu-shum-ukin  II,  in  the  second  year  of 
his  reign.  It  was  at  this  time  that  Tiglath- 
pileser  was  most  deeply  absorbed  in  delicate 
and  difficult  operations  in  the  west.  It  was 
impossible  for  him  to  leave  to  other  hands  the 
conduct  of  the  siege  of  Damascus,  or  the  di¬ 
rection  of  the  important,  though  subsidiary, 
expeditions  in  Palestine  and  Arabia.  For  a 
season  Babylonia  must  be  left  to  its  own  re¬ 
sources;  which  offered  an  opportunity  to  the 
traditional  enemies  of  Babylonia,  the  Chaldeans, 
or  Aramaeans.  The  union  of  tribes  made  a 
successful  attack  on  the  country  when  Nabu- 
shum-ukin  had  reigned  only  about  one  month. 
Nabu-shum-ukin  was  deposed,  and  in  his  place 
Ukinzer  (Nabu-mukin-zer),  a  Chaldean  prince  of 
the  state  of  Bit-Amukkani,  was  made  king.  This 
was  in  732,  and  Tiglathpileser  was  still  in  camp 
before  Damascus.  With  the  accession  of  Ukinzer, 
Babylonian  unrest  almost  became  a  frenzy. 
There  was  a  traditional  hatred  of  the  Chal¬ 
deans,  and  they  were  now  masters  in  the  land, 
and  their  hand  was  not  light  in  ruling.  It 
is  therefore  not  surprising  that  the  priests, 
who  were  great  landed  proprietors,  and  the 
wealthier  classes  in  general,  who  were  despoiled 
of  property  by  their  new  and  hungry  rulers, 


296  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


should  have  longed  for  the  intervention  of 
Tiglathpileser.  Weary  of  the  constant  dis¬ 
turbances  in  the  south,  he  decided  to  invade 
the  land  in  731,  and  make  an  end  of  the  dis¬ 
turbances  by  giving  to  the  people  a  new  form 
of  government  with  more  perfect  supervision. 
In  his  progress  through  the  land  he  met  first 
with  the  tribe  of  Silani,  whose  king,  Nabu- 
ushabshi,  shut  himself  up  in  his  capital, 
Sarrabani.  The  Assyrians  took  the  city  and 
destroyed  it.  Nabu-ushabshi  was  impaled  in 
front  of  it  as  a  warning  to  rebels,  while  his 
wife,  his  children,  and  his  gods,  with  fifty-five 
thousand  people,  were  carried  into  captivity.1 
The  cities  of  Tarbasu  and  Yabullu  were  next 
utterly  wasted,  and  thirty  thousand  of  their 
inhabitants,  with  all  their  possessions,  were 
carried  away.  The  next  victim  in  this  bitter 
campaign  was  Zakiru,  of  the  tribe  of  Sha’alli, 
who  was  carried  in  chains  to  Assyria,  while 
his  whole  land  was  laid  waste  as  though  a  storm 
of  wind  and  wave  had  passed  over  it.2 

The  way  was  now  open  for  an  attack  upon 
the  real  object  of  the  expedition.  Ukinzer 
had  left  Babylon  and  fled  to  the  confines  of 
his  own  tribe  of  Amukkani,  where  he  shut 
himself  up  in  his  old  capital  of  Sapia.  If 'Tig¬ 
lathpileser  expected  him  to  surrender  on  de¬ 
mand,  he  was  mistaken.  Ukinzer  prepared 


1 II  R.  67,  lines  15-17. 

2  Ibid.,  lines  19-22. 


TIGLATHPILESER  IV— SHALMANESER  V  297 


for  a  siege.  The  season  was  now  probably 
late,  as  much  time  had  been  spent  on  the  pre¬ 
liminary  conquests,  and  there  was  not  time  to 
reduce  the  city  by  regular  siege.  Tiglathpileser 
therefore  contented  himself  for  this  year  with 
destroying  the  palm  gardens  about  the  city, 
leaving  not  one  tree  standing,  and  with  wasting 
all  the  smaller  cities  and  villages  in  the  environs.1 

While  this  process  of  pacification  was  going 
on,  other  Chaldean  princes  were  filled  with 
fear  lest  their  punishment  should  come  next, 
and  began  to  take  steps  to  set  themselves 
right  with  Tiglathpileser.  Of  these  Balasu 
(Belesys),  the  chief  of  the  Dakkuri,  sent  gold, 
silver,  and  precious  stones,  as  did  also  Nadin 
of  Larak.  But  the  most  important  of  these 
was  Merodach-baladan,  of  the  tribe  of  Yakin, 
king  of  the  country  of  the  Sea  Lands,  close 
to  the  Persian  Gulf.  He  had  never  before 
given  any  form  of  submission  to  any  Assyrian 
king,  but  now  came,  apparently  in  person,  to 
Sapia  and  presented  an  immense  gift  of  gold, 
precious  stones,  choice  woods,  embroidered 
robes,  together  with  cattle  and  sheep.2  Great 
though  his  submission  was,  the  end  was  not 
yet  with  the  family  of  Merodach-baladan. 

In  the  year  730  there  are  no  events  to  record, 
but  in  729  Tiglathpileser  was  again  in  Baby¬ 
lonia,  and  this  time  was  able  to  take  the  strong- 


1  Ibid.,  lines  22-25. 

2  II  R.  67,  lines  26-28. 


298  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


hold  of  Sapia.  Ukinzer  was  deposed,  and  the 
unrest  of  Babylonia  was  terminated.  And  now 
the  plans  which  Tiglathpileser  must  have  made 
years  before  could  be  fully  carried  out.  He 
was  determined  to  make  an  end  of  the  ruling 
of  Babylonia  by  native  princes  and  instead 
govern  it  himself  directly  by  making  himself 
king.  He  instituted  festivals  in  the  principal 
Babylonian  cities  in  honor  of  the  great  gods. 
In  Babylon  he  offered  sacrifices  to  Marduk, 
at  Borsippa  to  Nabu,  at  Kutha  to  Nergal; 
while  other  offerings  less  magnificent  were  made 
in  Kish,  Nippur,  Ur,  and  Sippar.  He  then, 
in  Babylon,  performed  the  great  ceremony  of 
taking  the  hands  of  Marduk.1  By  this  act 
he  was  received  as  the  son  of  the  god  and 
as  the  legitimate  king  of  Babylon.  On  New 
Year’s  Day  of  the  year  729  he  was  proclaimed 
king  in  the  ancient  city  of  Hammurapi.  At 
Babylon  he  was  crowned  under  the  name  of 
Pulu  (Poros  in  the  Ptolemaic  canon),  but. 
whether  he  had  borne  this  name  before  or 
had  now  adopted  it  in  order  that  by  change 
of  name  the  Babylonians  might  be  spared 
living  under  the  name  of  Tiglathpileser — an 
Assyrian  conqueror — is  not  known  to  us.  This 
move  of  accepting  the  crown  of  Babylon  had 
a  great  advantage  and  an  equally  great  dis¬ 
advantage.  It  would  act  as  an  effectual  bar 

1  Eponym  Canon.  See  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  i,  pp.  214,  215.  Rogers, 
Cuneiform  Parallels ,  p.  236.  The  last  Assyrian  king  who  had  taken  the 
hands  of  Marduk  was  Tukulti-Ninib,  about  1290  B.  C. 


TIGLATHPILESER  IY— SHALMANESER  Y  299 


to  the  Chaldeans,  who  would  not  dare  another 
outbreak  while  the  Assyrian  king  was  king  of 
Babylon,  with  his  overpowering  military  forces 
in  or  about  the  city  or  within  easy  reach.  On 
the  other  hand,  this  crowning  involved  a  very 
great  difficulty.  It  must  be  renewed  every 
year;  every  year  must  the  hands  of  Marduk 
be  taken.  This  might  almost  be  impossible, 
for  if  there  was  a  great  insurrection  at  any 
point  in  the  king’s  dominions,  he  would  have 
to  leave  the  seat  of  war  at  the  time  appointed 
and  hasten  to  Babylon  for  the  performance  of 
the  symbolic  rite.  It  was  not  possible  to 
transfer  the  capital  of  the  empire  to  Babylon, 
for  the  Assyrians  would  have  felt  themselves 
dishonored  by  any  such  plan.  Tiglathpileser 
must  have  felt  sure  of  the  stability  of  the 
empire  and  of  the  peace  which  he  had  won 
by  the  sword,  or  he  would  never  have  taken 
upon  himself  the  burden  of  the  crown  of  Baby- 
Ion.  In  the  next  year,  728,  he  again  performed 
the  required  rites  and  was  again  proclaimed 
king  in  Babylon.  He  had  reached  the  very 
summit  of  the  earthly  magnificence  of  his  age, 
and  attained  the  goal  coveted  by  the  kings  of 
Assyria  before  him.  tie  was  not  only  king  of 
Sumer  and  Accad,  but  also  king  of  Baby¬ 
lon. 

We  have  no  knowledge  of  any  other  im¬ 
portant  events  in  his  reign.  It  was  almost 
wholly  a  reign  of  war  and  conquest.  We  know 


300  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


of  only  one  building  operation,  the  reconstruc¬ 
tion  and  improvement  in  Hittite  style  of  the 
palace  in  Calah,  which  he  occupied  during 
most  of  his  life,  and  which  had  been  built  by 
Shalmaneser  III.  In  the  month  of  Tebet  of 
the  year  727  the  great  king  died.1 

It  is  difficult  to  estimate  calmly  and  ju¬ 
diciously  his  reign  or  his  character.  He  had 
come  to  the  throne  out  of  a  rebellion.  He 
found  himself  in  possession  of  a  small  kingdom 
with  tribute-paying  dependencies,  many  in  a 
state  of  unrest  or  of  open  rebellion.  The 
name  of  Assyria  had  been  made  a  dread  and 
a  terror  among  the  nations  by  raids  of  almost 
unexampled  butchery  and  destructiveness,  but 
it  was  now  feared  as  before.  Weak  kings 
had  been  unable  to  hold  together  the  fragile 
fabric  which  kings  great  in  war,  though  not 
in  administration,  had  built  up.  He  made 
this  small  kingdom  a  unit,  freeing  it  entirely 
from  all  semblance  of  rebellion  or  insurrection. 
He  reconquered  the  tribute-paying  countries,  and 
then,  by  a  master  stroke  of  policy,  but  weakly 
attempted  in  certain  places  before,  he  made 
them  integral  parts  of  an  empire.  In  every 
true  sense  he  was  the  creator  of  the  Assyrian 
empire  out  of  a  kingdom  and  a  few  depend¬ 
encies.  He  made  Assyria  a  world  power, 
knitting  province  to  province  by  unparalleled 

1  Babylonian  Chronicle,  col.  i,  line  24;  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  pp. 
276,  277. 


TIGLATHPILESER  IV— SHALMANESER  V  301 


colonizing,  and  transforming  local  into  imperial 
sentiment.  No  king  like  him  even  in  war 
had  arisen  in  Assyria  before,  and  in  organiza¬ 
tion  and  administration  he  so  far  excelled  them 
all  as  to  be  beyond  comparison. 

In  an  inscription  written  the  year  before 
his  death  he  sums  up  the  record  of  his  empire 
building  by  the  declaration  that  he  ruled  from 
the  Persian  Gulf  in  the  south  to  Bikni  in  the 
east,  and  along  the  sea  of  the  setting  sun  unto 
Egypt,  and  exhibits  the  same  extent  of  terri¬ 
tory  in  the  titles  which  he  wears,  for  he  was 
then  king  of  Kishshati,  king  of  Assyria,  king 
of  Babylon,  king  of  Sumer  and  Accad,  king  of 
the  Four  Quarters  of  the  Earth.  In  him  were 
thus  united  the  titles  which  carried  back  the 
thought  of  man  to  the  very  earliest  centers  of 
civilization  in  the  southland,  to  the  kingdoms 
which  had  been  made  great  by  Gudea  and 
Hammurapi,  along  with  those  which  were 
linked  with  all  the  story  of  the  north.  In  the 
face  of  a  record  like  this  none  may  grudge 
him  the  titles  of  “great  king”  and  “powerful 
king.”  The  usurper  had  far  outstripped  men 
born  to  the  purple. 

In  the  very  month1  in  which  Tiglathpileser 
IV  died  he  was  succeeded  by  Shalmaneser  V, 
who,  if  not  his  son,  must  have  been  his  legal 
heir  to  the  succession,  or  the  change  could  not 
have  been  so  quickly  made.  No  historical 


1  Babylonian  Chronicle,  i,  27. 


302  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


inscriptions1  of  his  reign  have  come  down  to 
us,  and  we  have,  therefore,  very  imperfect 
knowledge  of  its  events,  especially  as  the 
Eponym  List,  which  has  so  often  before  helped 
us  to  make  out  the  order  of  events  in  the  reigns, 
is  broken  off  at  this  place.  The  Babylonian 
Chronicle  sets  down  in  the  year  of  his  accession, 
that  is,  in  727,  the  destruction  of  a  city,  Sha- 
mara’in  or  Shabara’in,  the  biblical  Sibraim,2 
located  between  Hamath  and  Damascus.  If 
this  be  true,  we  may  well  ask  what  had  brought 
Shalmaneser  so  quickly  after  his  succession  into 
the  western  country.  Unfortunately  we  do  not 
possess  his  version  of  the  story,  and  must 
derive  our  knowledge  from  his  enemies,  among 
whom  the  Hebrews  have  left  us  an  explicit 
and  convincing  account  of  his  chief  movements. 

It  will  be  necessary  before  proceeding  further 
with  the  narrative  of  Shalmaneser’s  movements 
to  fasten  attention  for  a  time  upon  the  lands 
of  Palestine  and  Egypt.  When  Hoshea  became 
king  of  Samaria  in  733-2,  during  the  reign  of 
Tiglathpileser  IV,  he  accepted  the  post  as  a 
subject  of  the  Assyrian  monarch,  and  was 
bound  in  every  possible  way  to  maintain  peace. 

1  The  only  records  of  the  reign  are,  1.  A  weight  with  the  king’s  name 

and  legend  in  Assyrian  and  Aramaean,  published  by  Norris  in  the  Journal 
of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  xvi  (1856),  p.  220,  No.  5.  Translations 
are  given  in  Schrader,  Cuneiform  Ins.  and  the  O.  T.,  i,  127,  ff.,  and  by 
the  same  in  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  p.  33.  2.  A  contract  tablet  in  the 

British  Museum  (Iv.  407),  translated  by  Peiser,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl., 
iii,  p.  109,  3. 

2  Ezek.  xlvii,  16.  Halevy  would  identify  Sibraim  with  the  biblical 
Sepharvaim. 


TIGLATHPILESER  IV—  SHALMANESER  V  303 

There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  he  remained 
faithful  to  Tiglathpileser  till  the  great  monarch 
died.  When  the  change  of  rulers  came  in 
Assyria  we  may  also  look  for  disturbances 
among  the  subject  states.  We  have  learned 
from  frequent  instances  that  the  western  states 
accepted  the  domination  of  Assyria  only  at 
the  point  of  the  sword.  They  hated  the  con¬ 
quering  destructive  monarchs,  and  yielded  only 
when  they  were  crushed.  We  have  also  learned 
that  the  populations  subject  to  Assyria  were 
always  hoping  for  an  opportunity  to  free  them¬ 
selves  from  the  galling  yoke,  and  we  have 
seen  in  several  instances  that  they  commonly 
chose  as  an  opportunity  the  change  of  rulers 
in  Assyria.  But  Tiglathpileser  IV  had  intro¬ 
duced  a  new  sort  of  conquest  and  an  entirely 
new  form  of  administrative  policy,  and  it  was 
not  to  be  expected  that  the  opportunity  for 
rebellion  would  be  so  great  at  the  end  of  his 
reign  as  it  had  been  before.  His  conquests 
were  less  destructive,  less  bloody,  than  those, 
for  example,  of  Ashurnazirpal,  and  hence  the 
wounds  which  they  made  in  the  sensibilities 
of  a  people  were  less  deep  and  angry.  But 
further  and  more  important  than  this,  he  not 
only  conquered,  he  ruled.  Provinces  were  not 
plundered  and  then,  after  being  commanded 
to  pay  an  annual  tribute,  left  to  themselves. 
They  were  provided  with  Assyrian  governors, 
who  could  watch  every  movement  of  the  sub- 


304  HISTOEY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


ject  populations,  and  so  scent  the  very  first 
sign  of  rebellion  or  of  conspiracy  looking  to  it. 
When  any  people  had  been  so  conquered  and 
so  administered  during  a  king’s  reign  they 
were  not  able  easily  to  make  a  confederation 
when  his  death  occurred.  This  was  a  very 
different  situation  from  that  which  tribute¬ 
paying  states  had  previously  known.  If  re¬ 
bellions  at  the  change  of  kings  were  now  gen¬ 
erally  less  likely  to  occur,  still  more  were  they 
unlikely  in  Palestine,  and  of  the  land  of  Palestine 
they  were  in  no  country  so  improbable  as  in 
Israel.  For  by  far  the  larger  and  better  part 
of  the  kingdom  was  absolutely  administered 
and  ruled  by  Assyrians,  and  in  part  populated 
by  colonists.  The  kingdom,  which  was  per¬ 
mitted  to  retain  the  semblance  of  autonomy, 
extended  but  a  short  distance  around  the 
capital  city.  There  was  no  inherent  likelihood 
of  any  outbreak  in  Samaria,  or  any  effort  to 
win  back  again  the  old  independence,  when 
Tiglathpileser  IV  died,  and  in  the  selfsame 
month  Shalmaneser  V  succeeded  him. 

But  there  was  another  land  in  the  west  in 
which  great  changes  had  come  and  new  aspira¬ 
tions,  along  with  new  fears,  had  arisen.  In 
Egypt  during  all  this  period  of  rack  and  ruin 
in  Western  Asia,  there  were  also  troublous 
and  unsettled  conditions.  In  that  land,  which 
once  had  known  internal  peace  and  prosperity, 
and  external  glory  and  dominion  even  to  the 


TIGLATHPILESER  1Y— SHALMANESER  V  305 


Euphrates,  there  had  long  been  no  adequate 
central  government,  and  the  kings  who  bore 
more  or  less  extended  rule  within  its  borders 
showed  no  reverence  for  the  past,  while  they 
were  unable  to  govern  the  present.  Sheshonk 
III  even  broke  into  pieces  the  imposing  colossus 
of  Rameses  II  at  Tanis  to  use  it  in  the  con¬ 
struction  of  his  new  pylon.1  In  745  the  Twenty- 
second  Dynasty  ended  with  Sheshonk  IV,  who 
had  kept  some  sort  of  hold  upon  both  Thebes 
and  Memphis  until  his  end.  When  he  was 
gone  the  land  knew  little  but  internal  dissen¬ 
sion,  with  local  dynasts  struggling  one  against 
another  for  national  supremacy.  The  Twenty- 
third  Dynasty  began  with  Pedibast,  ruling 
according  to  Manetho  from  Tanis,  but  belonging 
by  name  to  Bubastis,  who  held  some  sort  of 
sway  far  into  the  south,  encompassing  even 
Thebes  in  his  dominion.  During  the  latter 
part  of  his  reign  he  had  to  share  with  Yewepet, 
a  dynast  from  the  eastern  Delta,  part  at  least 
of  the  control.  As  these  dynasts  and  their 
successors  or  contemporaries  sought  by  any 
means  to  prevail  each  over  other,  there  was 
no  more  easy  way  of  reconciling  Egypt  to  one 
than  some  movement  against  the  common  foe 
of  all  the  west,  or  a  campaign  to  recover  the 
long  lost  Asiatic  provinces. 

As  we  have  seen  above,  it  was  altogether 
improbable  that  Israel  would  dare  single-handed 


1  Breasted,  History  of  Egypt,  p.  535. 


306  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


to  break  faith  with  the  Assyrians,  but  if  there 
was  some  hope  of  aid  from  the  Egyptians, 
the  case  was  altogether  different.  The  people 
of  Israel  could  not  be  expected  to  know  fully 
the  internal  affairs  of  Egypt  so  as  to  under¬ 
stand  the  essential  weakness  of  the  country 
as  an  ally.  They  might  well  be  acquainted 
with  the  glorious  history  of  Egypt,  with  its 
great  conquests  and  successful  wars  in  the 
past.  They  could  hardly,  on  the  other  hand, 
be  expected  to  know  of  the  weakness  of  the 
country  at  present,  of  the  unsettled  strife  be¬ 
tween  the  dynasts;  of  the  local  jealousies  and 
petty  provincial  strifes;  of  official  corruption; 
and  of  the  insolent  avarice  of  the  priestly  class. 
Instead  of  Egypt’s  being  an  important  and 
valuable  ally  it  was  in  reality  a  very  weak  one, 
and  a  little  later  may  be  shown  to  be  a  cause 
of  weakness  rather  than  strength  to  her  Syrian 
allies.  None  of  these  things  were  apparently 
known  to  Hoshea.  Induced  by  some  repre¬ 
sentations  made  to  him,  or  through  the  direct 
holding  out  of  the  Egyptian  hand,  he  sent 
messengers  to  Sibe,1  who  was  probably  one 

1  In  the  Massoretic  text  of  2  Kings  xvii,  4,  the  ally  of  Hoshea  is  called 
So  (NiD)>  but  the  word  ought  probably  be  punctuated  Sewe  (NlD)- 
In  the  inscriptions  of  Sargon  he  is  called  Shabi,  and  was  formerly  iden¬ 
tified  with  Shabaka  (so  Oppert  and  Rawlinson).  Stade  was  the  first 
to  suggest  that  he  was  one  of  the  Delta  kings,  and  Winckler  ( Unter - 
suchungen,  pp.  92-94,  106-108)  produced  strong  arguments  in  its  favor. 
He  has,  however,  latterly  changed  his  mind  and  considers  him  a  general 
of  the  north  Arabian  land  of  Musri  ( Mittheilungen  der  Vorderas.  Gesell., 
1898,  i,  p.  5).  The  argument  seems  to  me  insufficient.  Winckler’s 
suggestions  concerning  Musri  are  exceedingly  fruitful,  and  many  are 


TIGLATHPILESEK  IY—  SHALMANESER  V  307 

of  the  dynasts  in  the  Delta,  though  his  name 
has  not  been  preserved  for  us  in  his  own  coun¬ 
try.  With  him  some  sort  of  alliance  was  made, 
and  Hoshea  now  felt  strong  enough  to  omit 
the  payment  of  the  annual  tribute  to  Assyria, 
which  he  had  paid  “year  upon  year.”  This 
implies  that  he  had  paid  it  at  least  two  years 
before  it  was  omitted — that  is,  in  727  and 
726. 

Now  it  has  already  appeared  that  Shal¬ 
maneser  V  was  in  Syria,  or  at  least  an  army 
of  his,  in  the  accession  year,  727.  A  natural 
way  of  paying  the  tribute,  and  a  very  common 
one,  was  to  the  Assyrian  army  when  it  was 
near  at  hand.  This  Hoshea  seems  to  have 
done  in  727,  and  again  in  726.  In  725,  rely¬ 
ing  on  the  help  of  Egypt,  he  rebelled  and  re¬ 
fused  the  annual  payment  of  tribute.  At 
once  Shalmaneser  V  invades  Samaria  with  an 
army  to  reduce  this  incipient  fire  of  rebellion, 
which,  uncontrolled,  might  involve  the  whole 
of  his  valuable  Syrian  possessions  in  flames. 
Hoshea  was  altogether  disappointed  in  his 
expectation  of  help  from  Egypt  and  was  left 
to  meet  his  fate  alone.  The  reserve  of  the 
biblical  sources  has  told  us  nothing  of  the 
efforts  of  Hoshea  against  the  forces  of  the 
Assyrians.  From  the  order  of  the  narrative  we 
are  probably  justified  in  the  inference  that 


probably  correct,  but  he  has  carried  the  matter  too  far  in  attempting 
to  eliminate  Egypt  almost  entirely  and  supplant  it  with  Musri. 


308  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


he  left  his  capital  with  an  army  to  meet  the 
advance  of  the  forces  of  Shalmaneser.  He 
was,  however,  overwhelmed,  captured,  and  prob¬ 
ably  taken  to  Assyria.  Shalmaneser  had  now 
an  open  way  to  the  city  of  Samaria,  which 
he  had  determined  to  destroy  as  the  penalty 
for  its  rebellion.  The  execution  of  this  plan 
was  not  so  easy  as  the  conquest  and  capture 
of  the  king.  Samaria  prepared  for  a  siege. 
There  is  something  heroic  in  the  very  thought. 
It  was  surrounded  and  hemmed  in  by  territory 
over  which  it  had  once  ruled  in  undisputed 
sway,  but  which  had  long  been  controlled  by 
Assyrian  governors  and  filled  with  Assyrian 
colonists.  As  Shalmaneser  advanced  closer  he 
would,  of  course,  destroy  and  lay  waste  every¬ 
thing  about  the  city  which  might  have  fur¬ 
nished  any  aid  or  comfort  to  ‘it.  From  the 
villages  and  towns  thus  destroyed  the  people 
would  flock  into  the  capital  until  it  was  crowded. 
The  people  of  Samaria  may  have  hoped  for 
help  from  Egypt,  watching  with  sick  hearts 
for  signs  of  an  approaching  army  of  succor. 
They  knew  what  surrender  meant  in  the  loss 
of  their  city,  and  in  probable  deportation  to 
strange  lands.  They  were  fighting  to  the 
bitter  end  for  homes  and  for  life.  So  they 
resisted — and  the  story  is  amazing— for  three 
long  years.1  The  king  of  Assyria  died,  and 
still  Samaria  held  out,  and  would  not  sur- 


1  2  Kings  xviii,  9,  10, 


TIGLATHPILESER  IV— SHALMANESER  V  309 


render.  It  makes  one  think  what  might  have 
been  if  there  had  been  such  courage  in  Israel 
in  the  days  of  Menahem.  Shalmaneser  died 
in  722  and  left  Samaria  unconquered,  and 
hence  all  Syria  in  jeopardy  to  his  successor. 
If  a  weak  man  should  take  his  place  now, 
all  that  had  been  won  by  Tiglathpileser  might 
be  lost. 

We  have  no  further  knowledge  of  any  events 
in  the  reign  of  Shalmaneser  V.  It  is  true  that 
Josephus1  has  preserved  an  account  of  an 
expedition  of  his  against  Tyre,  which  he  had 
taken  from  Menander.  According  to  his  story 
a  certain  Elulseus,  king  of  Tyre,  had  rebelled, 
and  Shalmaneser  came  to  besiege  the  city. 
He  was,  however,  unable  to  reduce  it  after  a 
five  years’  siege.  We  have  no  allusion  to  any 
such  siege  in  any  of  the  inscription  material 
which  we  possess,  and  it  is  altogether  probable 
that  Josephus  has  made  a  mistake  and  ascribed 
to  Shalmaneser  a  siege  of  Tyre  which  was 
really  made  by  Sennacherib.  If  he  had  really 
besieged  Tyre  and  left  this  siege  also  as  an 
inheritance  to  his  successor,  we  should  almost 
certainly  find  it  mentioned  in  the  abundant 
historical  material  of  the  next  reign.2 

It  is  impossible  properly  to  estimate  the 
character  or  deeds  of  Shalmaneser  from  the 

1  Josephus,  ix,  14.  2.  Compare  Winckler,  Geschichtc,  p.  333,  note  51. 

2  See,  however,  a  defense  of  the  Josephus  passage  in  Lehmann-Haupt, 
Israel,  Seine  Entwickelung  ivi  Rahmen  dor  Weltgeschichte  (Tubingen, 

1911),  pp.  98-100. 


310  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


scanty  historical  materials  which  we  possess. 
His  reign  of  only  five  years  was  entirely  too 
short  for  any  great  undertakings.  He  un¬ 
doubtedly  left  to  his  successor  more  problems 
than  he  had  solved  himself. 


CHAPTER  VII 


THE  REIGN  OF  SARGON  II 

Shalmaneser  V  died  in  the  month  of  Tebet, 
and  in  the  very  same  month  Sargon  II  (722-705 
B.  C.)  became  king  of  Assyria.  Like  Tiglath- 
pileser  IV,  he  was  not  of  royal  blood.  In  no 
single  passage  does  he  ever  claim  descent 
from  any  of  the  previous  kings,  nor  in  any 
way  allude  to  his  parentage.  His  son,  Sen¬ 
nacherib,  who  succeeded  him,  is  also  silent 
concerning  the  origin  of  Sargon,  but  his  grand¬ 
son,  Esarhaddon,  provides  him  with  an  artificial 
genealogy  which  carries  back  his  line  to  Bel-bani, 
an  ancient  king  of  Asshur.  It  is  a  striking 
fact  that  he  was  able  to  put  himself  so  quickly 
and  so  securely  on  the  throne,  and  it  makes 
one  think  that  there  may  have  been  some 
understanding  before  the  death  of  Shalmaneser 
by  which  Sargon  was  made  the  legal  heir. 
On  the  other  hand,  he  may  have  been  a  suc¬ 
cessful  general,  as  we  have  already  supposed 
that  Tiglathpileser  IV  was,  and  so  had  in  his 
hand  a  weapon  ready  to  enforce  his  ambitious 
claims  to  the  throne.  Like  Tiglathpileser,  also, 
he  must  have  been  well  known  as  a  man  of 
force,  for  there  was  no  uprising  against  him, 

311 


312  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


and  he  was  at  once  recognized  as  the  lawful 
king. 

He  inherited  a  kingdom  full  of  great  prob¬ 
lems  and  difficulties.  Samaria  was  not  yet 
taken,  and  if  it  should  succeed  in  effectual 
resistance,  all  Syria  would  take  new  heart, 
and  the  whole  fabric  which  Tiglathpileser  IV 
had  laboriously  built  up,  but  had  not  had  time 
fully  to  cement  together,  would  be  in  frag¬ 
ments.  This  was  a  not  improbable  outcome, 
for  Egypt  was  eager  to  foment  disturbance  in 
the  southern  part  of  the  land,  hoping  thereby 
to  gain  back  some  of  the  territory  which  had 
been  lost.  On  the  north  there  was  also  a  dis¬ 
turbing  center.  Tiglathpileser  had  not  been 
able  to  finish  the  partition  of  Urartu,  and  that 
state  would  be  very  willing  to  incite  the  northern 
Syro-Phcenician  states  to  rebel  when  rulers 
were  changed  in  Assyria,  in  the  hope  of  build¬ 
ing  up  again  the  kingdom  which  Tiglathpileser 
had  broken  in  pieces.  In  Babylonia  also  the 
death  of  Shalmaneser  had  given  opportunity 
for  a  sudden  outbreak  of  new  efforts  among 
the  Chaldeans.  It  was  indeed  a  troublesome 
age  on  which  Sargon  had  lighted.  A  man  of 
great  energy  and  ability  would  alone  be  able 
to  meet  the  dangers  and  solve  them.  Such  a 
man  was  Sargon.  Like  Tiglathpileser  IV,  he 
was  a  usurper.  It  is  an  eloquent  witness  to 
the  resources  of  Assyria  that  two  such  men 
were  produced  so  close  to  each  other,  and  not 


THE  REIGN  OF  SARGON  II 


313 


of  a  royal  house,  with  inherited  strength  and 
ability. 

We  are  well  supplied  with  inscriptions1  setting 

1  The  following  are  the  chief  inscriptions  of  Sargon’s  reign:  (a)  The 
Annals,  published  first  by  Botta,  Le  Monument  de  Ninive,  plates  63-92, 
105-120,  155-160,  and  with  corrections  and  amendments  by  Winckler, 
Die  Keilschrifttexte  Sargon’s,  li.  They  are  translated  into  English  by 
Jules  Oppert,  Records  of  the  Past,  First  Series,  vii,  pp.  21-56,  but  this 
version  is  now  somewhat  antiquated.  There  is  a  good  German  trans¬ 
lation  by  Winckler,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  2-95.  The  Annals  have  come  down 
to  us  in  four  recensions,  in  a  fragmentary  condition,  and  the  relations 
between  the  recension  and  between  parts  of  the  fragments  are  some¬ 
times  obscure.  For  details  Winckler  must  be  consulted,  but  allusions 
to  some  of  the  problems  will  be  found  below.  The  differences  are 
carefully  analyzed  in  Olmstead,  Western  Asia  in  the  Days  of  Sargon 
of  Assyria  (1908),  p.  7,  f.,  with  results  almost  always  convincing,  and 
to  which  due  heed  is  paid  in  the  following  narrative,  (b)  General 
Inscription  ( Inscription  des  Pastes,  Prunk  Inschrift,  called  by  Olm¬ 
stead,  Display  Inscription) ,  published  by  Botta,  op.  cit.,  plates  93-104, 
121-154,  181,  and  by  Winckler,  op.  cit.,  ii,  plates  30-36,  and  trans¬ 
lated  by  him,  ibid.,  i,  pp.  96-135,  and  into  English  by  Oppert,  “The 
Great  Inscription  in  the  Palace  of  Khorsabad,”  in  the  Records  of  the. 
Past,  First  Series,  iv,  pp.  1-20.  (c)  The  Inscriptions  on  the  Gateway 

Pavement,  published  by  Botta,  op.  cit.,  plates  1-21,  and  by  Winckler 
op.  cit.,  ii,  plates  36-40,  and  translated  by  him,  i,  pp.  136-163.  (d) 

Inscription  on  the  Back  of  the  Slabs,  published  by  Botta,  op.  cit.,  plates 
164,  ff.,  and  by  Winckler,  op.  cit..,  ii,  plate  40,  and  translated  by  him, 

i,  pp.  164-167.  (e)  Nimroud  Inscription,  published  by  Layard,  In¬ 

scriptions  in  the  Cuneiform  Character,  plates  33,  34,  and  translated 
by  Winckler,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  168-173,  and  by  Peiser,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl., 

ii,  pp.  34-39.  (f)  The  Stela  Inscription,  published  III  R.  11,  and  more 

completely  by  Schrader,  Die  Sargonstele  (1882)  and  translated  (in 
part)  by  Winckler,  op.  cit.,  pp.  174-185.  (g)  Bull  Inscription,  pub¬ 

lished  by  Botta,  op.  cit.,  plates  22-62,  and  by  Lyon,  Keilschrifttexte 
Sargon’s,  plates  13-19,  and  translated  by  him,  pp.  40-47.  (h)  Cylin¬ 

der  Inscription,  published  I  R.  36,  and  by  Lyon,  op.  cit.,  plates  1-12, 
and  translated  by  him,  pp.  30-39.  All  these  have  been  critically  ana¬ 
lyzed  by  Olmstead,  op.  cit.,  Chapter  I.  Since  his  book  was  published, 
a  few  bricks  with  brief  inscriptions  have  been  found  at  Asshur,  but 
they  add  little  to  our  knowledge  (Messerschmidt,  Die  Keilschrifttexte 
aus  Assur,  I,  Nos.  37-42.  Of  these  No.  38  is  in  Sumerian). 

But  the  most  remarkable  document  of  Sargon’s  reign  is  a  magnificent 
clay  tablet  of  extraordinary  size  (about  9£xl4£  inches),  in  which 
Sargon  gives  a  most  elaborate  account  of  his  eighth  campaign  in  the 
year  714.  It  is  in  the  form  of  a  letter  addressed  by  the  king  to  Ashur, 
“father  of  the  gods,”  in  the  city  of  Asshur  and  to  the  city,  its  people 


314  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


forth  the  chief  events  of  Sargon’s  reign,  and 
have  only  to  follow  the  plain  indications  of 
the  Annals  in  order  to  s’ee  them  all  in  proper 
sequence.  In  respect  of  historical  reliability 
they  are  much  less  satisfactory.  They  are 
boastful  in  tone,  and  quite  evidently  not  free 
of  exaggeration.  Worse  than  this  they  contain 
serious  contradictions  and  require  frequently  to 
be  used  with  much  caution. 

In  the  year  of  the  accession  of  Sargon  (722 
B.  C.)  Samaria  fell,  but  it  is  improbable  that 
he  had  anything  to  do  with  it  in  person.  He 
could  scarcely  have  been  present  so  quickly, 
leaving  behind  him  all  the  possible  dangers 
to  the  throne  which  he  had  just  ascended. 
It  was  a  most  fortunate  result  for  his  reign 
that  Samaria  was  taken  without  a  longer  siege. 
Very  probably  the  same  army  which  had 
invested  the  city  secured  also  its  surrender. 
Neither  the  army  nor  the  inhabitants  of  Sa¬ 
maria  are  likely  to  have  known  anything  of 
the  change  of  rulers  in  Assyria.  The  biblical 
account  does  not  mention  the  name  of  the 
king  of  Assyria  into  whose  hands  the  city  fell, 
but  the  form  of  statement  seems  to  imply  that 
Shalmaneser  was  still  considered  king.* 1  Sargon 


and  its  palace.  It  is  splendidly  published  by  Thureau-Dangin,  JJne 
Relation  de  la  huiti&me  Campagne  de  Sargon.  Paris,  1912. 

1  “In  the  ninth  year  of  Hoshea  the  king  of  Assyria  took  Samaria, 
and  carried  Israel  away  into  Assyria”  (2  Kings  xvii,  6).  It  is  to  be 
noted  that  in  verses  4  and  5  the  same  phrase,  “king  of  Assyria,”  is 
used,  applying  there  to  Shalmaneser  V,  and  no  hint  is  given  that  a 


THE  REIGN  OF  SARGON  II 


315 


was  not  yet  known  in  the  west  as  he  would 
later  come  to  be.  As  soon  as  Samaria  was 
taken  he  gave  orders  that  the  colonizing  plans 
which  Tiglathpileser  IV  had  devised  and  per¬ 
fected  should  be  carried  out  on  a  large  scale. 
From  the  city  there  were  taken  away  twenty- 
seven  thousand  two  hundred  and  ninety  men, 
who  were  settled  in  the  Median  mountains 
and  in  the  province  of  Gozan  (Guzanu)  along 
the  rivers  Balikh  and  Khabur.  To  supply 
their  places  colonists  were  brought  from  Kutha, 
in  Babylonia,  and  recently  conquered  terri¬ 
tories.  The  people  carried  away  from  Samaria 
were  probably  of  the  very  best  blood  in  the 
land — the  men  who  had  fought  for  three  weary 
years  against  the  most  powerful  military  state 
of  western  Asia.  They  were  probably  officials, 
skilled  laborers,  and  tradespeople.  The  loss 
to  the  land  was  irreparable,  and  the  kingdom 
of  Israel  never  regained  the  strength  it  once 
had.  There  was  another  little  spasm  of  re¬ 
bellion  in  a  short  time,  as  we  shall  see,  but 
the  land  had  not  left  in  it  the  national  life 
to  sustain  another  such  struggle.  So  did  the 
Assyrians  in  the  reign  of  Sargon  finish  the 
task  which  they  began  in  the  reign  of  Shal¬ 
maneser  V.* 1  Over  the  land  of  Samaria  Sargon 

change  of  rulers  had  taken  place.  Compare  Guthe,  Geschichte  des 
Volkes  Israel,  p.  193.  In  the  third  edition,  p.  218. 

1  Olmstead  (American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages,  1905,  pp.  179,  ff., 
and  Western  Asia  in  the  Days  of  Sargon,  p.  45,  footnote  9)  argues  that 
Samaria  was  really  taken  by  Shalmaneser  V,  but  the  argument  is  not 
convincing. 


316  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


set  Assyrian  governors,  and  the  once  glorious 
and  powerful  kingdom  of  Israel  became  an 
insignificant  Assyrian  province. 

There  were  greater  problems  in  Babylonia  for 
Sargon  than  the  west  had  yet  offered.  We 
have  seen1  how  in  729  Merodach-baladan,  of 
the  tribe  of  Bit-Yakin,  king  of  the  Sea  Lands, 
had  paid  homage  to  Tiglathpileser  IV  and 
made  costly  gifts  in  token  of  his  subjection. 
That  was  well  enough  when  Tiglathpileser  IV 
was  threatening  to  destroy  the  entire  land,  but 
Merodach-baladan  intended  only  to  maintain 
his  allegiance  to  Assyria  so  long  as  the  Assyrians 
were  able  to  compel  it.  During  the  short  reign 
of  Shalmaneser  no  effort  seems  to  have  been 
made  by  the  Chaldeans,  but  it  is  quite  prob¬ 
able  that  all  the  while  the  preparations  were 
going  on.  When  Shalmaneser  died,  and  Sargon 
was  busy  in  Assyria  and  unable  to  proceed  to 
Babylon  to  take  the  hands  of  Marduk, 
Merodach-baladan  judged  that  the  hour  had 
come.  Without  great  difficulty  he  took  southern 
Babylonia,  the  ancient  kingdom  of  Sumer  and 
Accad,  and  then  the  city  of  Babylon  itself. 
On  New  Year’s  Day,  721,  he  was  proclaimed 
king  of  Babylon.2  Here  was  opened  again 
the  same  old  question  as  to  the  ruler  in  Baby¬ 
lon.  Sargon  never  could  lose  the  great  southern 
kingdom  without  a  bitter  war.  Merodach- 

1  See  above,  p.  297. 

2  Babylonian  Chronicle,  col.  i,  line  32.  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  276, 
277.  Sargon  succeeded  to  the  throne  about  three  months  earlier. 


Relief  from  the  top  of  a  Kudurru,  or  boundary 
stone,  containing  a  portrait  of  Merodach-baladan, 
king  of  Babylon,  who  is  represented  in  the  act  of 
conferring  title  to  landed  property  upon  one  of  his 
nobles.  Above  the  king’s  head  is  a  two-line  inscrip¬ 
tion,  “The  portrait  of  Merodach-baladan,  king  of 
Babylon.”  At  the  top  is  a  series  of  symbols  of  gods, 
representing  (from  left  to  right)  (1)  Nabu,  (2)  Nink- 
harsag  or  Ninlil,  (3)  Ea,  and  (4)  Marduk.  The  stone 
is  now  in  the  Berlin  Museum  (V.  A.  2663). 

[The  illustration  is  from  Carl  Bezold,  Nineve  und 
Babylon ,  3te  Auflage,  Leipzig,  1909.] 


’ »  •  *  j V  {  V  A 

A  s'  )  >  •■'.  1  ; ;  1 

1 ;  ie  0 1 1 ;  e 

-'.'■iOli  Ot 

Israo;  .s  earn 

•'  ’  > vi i  if'-  . 

<u 

t  al .  •  -roblen  s  B*  .•  v  •  ■ :V  . 

A 

had  yet  - 


Y»  ■  bii 


7.29  7  To  '■)'■  ;ai  h  7 

,  'O'"  1  of 

•  j  m  >  -  3ir* 

-Yi- 

in,  sing  x  the 

>  \  ■  * 

’  ud 

ige 

•r  =\  and 

*  ! 

cost  •  v 

A  ■> 

1  {..••■  :'•  A:  .  I).}- 

sul  :  '  •  •  io 

yiabrmod  10  .Lfiiiibo/I  a  V)  qot  odi  .oiodidsilaH 
jii:b4ivcd~d‘)iibpf^^4  •  h‘  thviwq  :h  yiifaiaiiio-) : 

‘io  i‘)vB -od.t  m  .boiq9«oiq9:y.«i  o&ff  qiol^df^l  kj, 
aid  )o  9150  no(i i/  vd'ioqoiq  hobml  Q|  ^uir^ino:> 
-qiiosiit  at ill-ov/ )  ii  ai  D&ad  &  ^xidI.  odi  •9vod/^  .*01  don. 


"VJ.1  A\/Ui.x4.  7  1-iu^  y  *  *  •'  ,  ~7T  - v. 

•to  §ixH  ,mibi:kd-rfo^b()TOM  oiIT"  .noit 

,abog  to  ‘gtodixi^a  to  asma’is  «i  qoi  »ilt  tfA  ’  .iiolycfisH 

->!aiA  (2)  ,i;d«/x  (I)  (bfeh  oi  ffol  radtl)  ^itibtossiqsT 

.  rbjg  oiff  SubisM  (i)  bo*  ,fitt  (€}  ,KMM  -to  ^aa-uul 

fgBde  .A  .V)  mudauM  mhoS  9flt  ni'viah  ai 

*  \ 

b3n\  zmw'sV.  d>Iose8  IleO  fflcrp  ai  ^oii^auffi.  sill] 

umi  b[S( liowT  ^gaHuA  9)8' ;r(o^doi\ 

■  .  ^  y 

/;.  aiiiom 

■  0  .,  i -i.':  [  .♦! n  < ■*  81  ■  ner  -and 

1 

j  >,  721,  ho  was  proclaimed 
:  levs  was  opened  aaym 
.  *  on  as  ;:<>  the  ruler  h  B-  b}  - 

: 

:j:  •  ’  iVctr.  Merodach- 


'i'’" 


Keilv 


11—316 


I 


■ 


- 


■ 

T 


. 


THE  REIGN  OE  SARGON  II 


317 


baladan  had  thrown  down  the  gage,  and  there 
was  no  alternative  but  to  take  it  up.  Sargon 
entered  Babylonia  and  was  met  at  Dur-ilu  by 
an  army  under  the  command  of  Merodach- 
baladan,  with  Khumbanigash  of  Elam  as  an 
ally.  According  to  the  usual  custom,  Sargon 
claimed  a  victory.1  It  is,  however,  perfectly 
clear  from  the  issue  that  Sargon  had  not  been 
successful.  He  left  Merodach-baladan  in  ab- 
solute  possession  of  Babylon,  not  attempting 
at  all  to  enter  the  country  farther,  but  con¬ 
tenting  himself  with  the  possession  of  the 
extreme  northern  portion,  which  joined  with 
the  land  of  Assyria.  On  the  other  hand,  Mero¬ 
dach-baladan  did  not  attempt  to  drive  the 
Assyrians  out  of  this  northern  part,  but  was 
quite  satisfied  to  be  left  in  possession  of  the 
city  of  Babylon,  in  which  there  were  wealth 
and  power  enough  to  satisfy  his  ambitions, 
and  difficulties  enough  with  the  priesthood  to 
engage  his  best  powers.  The  failure  to  retake 
Babylon  was  a  bad  beginning  for  the  reign 
of  Sargon.  The  Assyrians  would  have  less 
confidence  in  his  prowess;  the  Chaldeans  would 
have  time  and  opportunity  to  strengthen  them¬ 
selves  in  their  hold  on  Babylon;  the  men  of 

1  Annals,  lines  18-23.  These  lines  are  badly  broken,  and  it  is  diffi¬ 
cult  to  make  much  of  them.  In  the  Cylinder  inscription  (line  17, 
Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  pp.  40,  41).  Sargon  thus  speaks  of  himself:  “The 
brave  hero  who  met  Khumbanigash  of  Elam  at  Durilu  and  accomplished 
his  defeat.’'  On  the  other  hand,  the  Babylonian  Chronicle  (col.  i, 
lines  33,  34,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  pp.  276,  277)  asserts  that  Khum¬ 
banigash  was  victorious  over  Sargon. 


318  HTSTOBY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYBTA 

Urartu  and  of  Syria  would  learn  of  it,  and 
would  judge  that  the  king  of  Assyria  was  not 
equal  to  his  predecessors.  Rebellions  all  over 
the  empire  lie  latent  in  this  failure  of  Sargon. 

The  first  rebellion  that  confronted  Sargon 
was  in  the  west,  where  one  might  have  thought 
that  the  punishment  of  Samaria  would  have 
deterred  others  from  a  new  attempt.  But 
the  Syrian  states  had  not  all  been  so  thor¬ 
oughly  blotted  out  as  Samaria,  and  there  was 
a  nucleus  in  Hamath  around  which  a  conspiracy 
might  crystallize.  Hamath,  one  of  the  oldest 
cities  in  Syria,  had  never  been  destroyed  or 
even  engrafted  into  the  Assyrian  empire.  This 
was  due  to  the  constant  exercise  of  a  crafty 
policy.  Hamath  had  joined  in  rebellions,  but 
always  withdrew  at  the  right  moment,  paid 
tribute,  and  played  the  part  of  a  faithful  ally 
of  Assyria.  It  owed  its  deliverance  in  the 
reign  of  Tiglathpileser  IV  only  to  this  policy 
pursued  by  its  king,  Eni-el.  But  this  crafti¬ 
ness,  while  it  saved  the  state  for  a  time,  was 
unpopular,  and  Eni-el  fell  a  victim  to  his  own 
prudence,  and  was  removed  from  the  throne 
by  a  national  party.  A  usurper  named  Il-ubidi,1 
or  Ya-ubidi,  called  by  Sargon  a  Hittite,  suc¬ 
ceeded  him  and  at  once  began  a  new  policy.  He 
formed  a  new  coalition  against  the  Assyrians,  in 

1  He  is  named  Ya’ubi’di  in  the  General  Inscription,  33  (Winckler, 
Die  Keilsehrifttexte  Sargon' s  I,  pp.  102,  103),  and  Nimroud,  8  Keil- 
inschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  pp.  36,  37).  He  is  called  Ilubidi  in  the  Annals  (line 
23,  Winckler,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  6,  7). 


THE  REIGN  OF  SARGON  II  319 

which  Arpad,  Simirra,  Damascus,  and  most 
surprising  of  all,  Samaria  joined. 

It  would  appear  from  this  that  even  the 
loss  of  so  many  of  her  best  men  and  the  watch¬ 
ful  eye  of  an  Assyrian  governor  were  not  able 
to  crush  every  aspiration  for  liberty.  Judah 
remained  faithful  to  Assyria,  and  did  not 
join  with  the  confederates.  Il-ubidi  made 
Qarqar  his  fortress,  and  placed  a  large  army 
in  the  field.  This  was  now  no  mean  opposition 
which  confronted  Sargon,  and  after  his  prac¬ 
tical  defeat  in  Babylonia  it  was  likely  to  have 
hopes  of  successfully  opposing  him.  At  the 
outset  he  displayed  one  quality  of  great  im¬ 
portance;  he  set  out  promptly  for  Syria  as 
soon  as  news  of  the  rebellion  reached  him, 
determined  to  strike  the  first  member  of  the 
alliance  before  the  others  could  unite  and  come 
to  his  support.  This  Assyrian  promptness  had 
often  before  cost  the  Syrian  states  great  losses. 
It  fell  out  in  this  case  exactly  as  he  had  planned. 
At  Qarqar  he  met  Ya-ubidi  and  his  army 
without  any  of  the  allies  and  gained  a  com¬ 
plete  victory.  The  unhappy  rebel  was  flayed, 
and  Qarqar  burned.  Hamath  was  taken  and 
plundered.  In  the  same  year  Hanno,  king  of 
Gaza,  who  had  formed  a  coalition  with  Sibe, 
an  Egyptian  dynast,  met  the  Assyrians  at 
Rapikhu  (Raphia)  and  suffered  an  overwhelm¬ 
ing  defeat.  Sibe  managed  to  get  off  with 
his  life  and  escaped  to  Egypt;  but  Hanno  was 


320  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


taken  prisoner  and  carried  off  in  chains  to 
Assyria.  The  results  of  these  two  campaigns, 
as  affecting  Assyria,  were  very  important. 

The  prestige  of  Sargon  personally  was  re¬ 
stored,  and  he  was  left  free,  following  the 
example  of  Tiglathpileser  IV,  to  set  right  the 
affairs  of  his  empire  in  other  border  countries. 

Of  all  these  Urartu  was  the  most  dangerous 
and  threatening.  Sargon  had  planned  to  reach 
its  destruction  by  slow  and  steady  approaches. 
He  would  first  restore  to  Assyria,  as  tribute¬ 
paying  states,  the  communities  which  sur¬ 
rounded  Urartu  on  the  west,  south,  and  east, 
and  then  finally  strike  the  all-important  blow. 
His  first  movement  was  from  the  east  against 
the  two  cities  of  Shuandakhul  and  Durdukka, 
situated  in  the  territory  belonging  to  Iranzu 
of  Man,  by  Lake  Urumiyeh.  These  renounced 
their  allegiance,  and  received  help  from  Mit’atti 
of  Zigirtu,1  whose  territory  probably  immediately 
joined.  Sargon  quickly  defeated  them  and 
destroyed  the  cities  (719  B.  C.),  but  did  not 
attempt  any  punishment  of  Mit’atti  at  this 
time.2  In  the  same  year  the  three  cities,  Sukia, 
Bala,  and  Abitikna,  whose  exact  location  is 
unknown,  though  they  also  adjoined  Urartu, 
were  destroyed  and  their  inhabitants  trans¬ 
planted  to  Syria.3  A  similar  campaign  occupied 

1  Zigirtu  (or  Zikirtu)  are  to  be  identified  with  the  Sagartians  (Herod¬ 
otus,  i,  cxxv). 

2  Annals,  lines  32-39  (Winckler,  op.  cit.,  pp.  8,  9). 

3  Annals,  lines  40-41  (Winckler,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  8,  9). 


THE  REIGN  OF  SARGON  II 


321 


the  year  718,  directed  against  the  western 
rather  than  the  eastern  approaches  to  Urartu. 
Kiakki  of  Shinukhtu,  a  district  of  Tabal  (Kappa- 
dokia),  had  not  paid  his  tribute.  He  with 
many  of  his  followers  was  transplanted  into 
Assyria,  and  his  land  delivered  over  to  Matti 
of  Atun  (called  Tun1  by  Tiglathpileser  IV), 
who  was  required  to  pay  a  higher  annual 
tribute.2 

The  year  717  was  not,  perhaps,  of  so  great 
importance  as  many  another  which  preceded 
and  which  followed  it  in  Assyrian  history,  but 
it  was  a  year  of  great  interest  in  one  way  at 
least,  as  it  ended  the  career  of  Carchemish. 
Alone  of  all  the  smaller  states  into  which  the 
great  Hittite  empire  had  broken  up,  it  had 
maintained  a  sort  of  independence,  paying  only 
an  annual  tribute.  The  king  of  Carchemish 
at  this  time  was  Pisiris,  who  is  even  called 
king  of  the  land  of  the  Hittites,3  as  though 
retaining  in  his  person  something  of  the  glory 
of  the  old  empire.  If  he  had  continued  to  pay 
his  annual  tribute,  he  would  probably  have 
been  permitted  to  remain  in  undisturbed  pos¬ 
session  of  his  high-sounding  title  and  in  the 
free  exercise  of  his  authority  over  the  internal 
affairs  of  his  kingdom.  In  an  evil  hour  he 

1  Tun  ia  probably  Tyana,  the  modern  Kiz  Hisar,  at  the  northern 
foot  of  the  Taurus,  in  southern  Kappadokia. 

2  Annals,  lines  42-45  (Winckler,  ibid.). 

*  “Shar  mat  Khatti,”  Nimroud,  line  10,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  pp. 
38,  39. 


322  HISTORY  OR  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

incited  Mita  of  Mushke  to  join  him  in  a  re¬ 
bellion  against  the  payment  of  tribute.  He 
was  speedily  overcome,  and  at  once,  with  his 
family  and  his  followers,  transported  into  As¬ 
syria.  With  them  Sargon  carried  away  as 
booty  eleven  talents  of  gold,  twenty-one  hun¬ 
dred  talents  of  silver,  and  fifty  chariots  of 
war.  Carchemish  was  repeopled  with  Assyrian 
colonists  and  became  an  Assyrian  province.1 
In  such  an  easy  manner  ended  the  very  last 
remnant  of  a  once  powerful  empire,  which  had 
defied  even  Egypt  at  the  zenith  of  its  power. 

In  the  same  year  the  cities  Papa  and  Lallukna, 
probably  located  near  Urartu,  joined  in  a  re¬ 
bellion,  but  were  overcome  and  their  inhab¬ 
itants  transplanted  to  Damascus.2  Year  after 
year  did  Sargon,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
continue  these  colonizations  in  Syria.  He  was 
determined  to  disturb  so  thoroughly  the  national 
life  that  there  might  be  no  opportunity  for 
any  further  uprisings.  After  all  this  inter¬ 
mixture  it  becomes  less  surprising  that  the 
Jews  who  returned  from  Babylon  would  not 
recognize  the  people  of  Samaria  as  their  fel¬ 
lows,3  but  looked  on  them  as  a  strange  race, 
and  called  them  Samaritans,  and  not  Hebrews. 

At  last,  in  716,  Sargon  felt  himself  strong 
enough  and  the  way  well  enough  prepared  to 
make  a  sharper  attack  on  Urartu,  and  not 


1  Annals,  lines  46-50  (Winckler,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  10,  11). 

2  Annals,  lines  50-52  (Winckler,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  10,  11). 

8  Ezra  iv,  3;  Ecclus.  i,  25,  26;  Luke  ix,  52,  53;  John  iv,  9. 


THE  REIGN  OF  SARGON  II 


323 


merely  on  the  states  which  surrounded  it. 
He  was  moved  to  a  more  active  policy  by  the 
threatening  doings  of  the  king  of  Urartu. 
Sarduris,  who  had  opposed  Tiglathpileser  IV 
so  successfully  as  regards  the  actual  land  of 
Urartu,  was  now  dead,  and  in  his  place  ruled 
Ursa,  as  the  Assyrian  inscriptions  usually  name 
him,1  or  Rusas,  as  he  is  known  to  native  his¬ 
toriographers.  As  early  as  719  Urartu  was 
intriguing  against  the  small  kingdom  of  Man, 
of  which  Iranzu  was  king,  and  Sargon  had  to 
save  to  Man  two  cities  which  Mit’atti  of 
Zigirtu,  a  tool  of  Urartu,  had  seized.  That 
wTas  a  warning  to  Urartu  for  a  time.  But  now 
Iranzu  was  dead  and  the  usual  troubles  over 
the  succession  in  small  states  of  the  Orient 
offered  an  opportunity  to  Urartu.  The  lawful 
heir  to  the  throne  of  Man  was  Aza,  son  of 
the  last  king,  and  he  finally  did  get  himself 
seated.  But  Rusas  then  stirred  up  against 
him  the  old  enemy  of  his  father,  Mit’atti  of 
Zigirtu,  and  also  the  lands  of  Misianda  and 
Umildish,  the  latter  of  which  was  ruled  by  a 
prince,  Bagdatti.  To  these  three  allies  were 
added  some  governors  out  of  Rusas’s  own 
territory,  and  all  things  were  ready  for  a  suc¬ 
cessful  attack  on  the  little  kingdom.  Aza 
had  given  pledges  of  faithfulness  to  Assyria, 

1  He  is  called  Rusa  in  Sargon’s  Annals,  lines  58  and  75  (Winckler, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  12,  13,  16,  17).  This  is  Rusas  I  of  Chaldia.  See  Belck 
and  Lehmann,  “Ein  Neuer  Herrscher  von  Chaldia,”  Zeitschrift  filr 
Assyriologie,  ix,  82,  ff.,  339,  ff. 


324  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


and  so  deserved  support.  He  was  soon  over¬ 
come  and  slain,  and  his  land  would  have  been 
speedily  divided  among  the  conspirators,  with 
the  lion’s  share  for  Rusas,  had  not  Sargon 
suddenly  appeared.  Bagdatti  of  Umildish  was 
captured  and  slain,  as  a  warning,  on  the  same 
spot  where  Aza  had  been  killed.  Ullusunu, 
brother  of  Aza,  was  put  on  the  throne  and 
confirmed  in  possession.  In  this  Sargon  had 
defeated  the  immediate  plans  of  Rusas,  but 
he  was  very  far  from  having  destroyed  his 
influence.  Scarcely  was  Sargon ’s  back  turned 
when  Ullusunu  broke  his  Assyrian  vows  and 
transferred  his  allegiance  to  Urartu,  actually 
giving  up  to  Rusas  twenty-two  villages  of  his 
domain.  We  do  not  know  what  led  to  this 
reversal  on  the  part  of  Ullusunu,  but  it  is  prob¬ 
able  that  he  was  forced  into  the  act.  Besides 
this  Ullusunu  induced  Ashur-li’  of  Karalla 
and  Itti  of  Allabra,  two  small  territories  of 
western  Media,  to  renounce  the  suzerainty  of 
Assyria  and  accept  that  of  Urartu.1 

Here  was  an  upturning  indeed  which  might 
be  imitated  by  other  states.  Sargon  increased 
his  army  and  returned  in  haste.  Upon  his 
approach  Ullusunu  fled  to  the  mountains,  leav¬ 
ing  his  capital,  Izirtu,  to  the  tender  mercies 
of  the  enraged  Sargon.  The  capital  was  soon 
taken,  as  well  as  Zibia  and  Arma’id,  two 
fortified  cities.  Izirtu  was  burned  and  the 


1  Annals,  lines  58,  59  (Winckler,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  12,  13). 


THE  REIGN  OE  SARGON  II 


325 


others  suffered  to  remain.1  Ullusunu,  probably 
seeing  no  way  of  escape  even  in  mountain  fast¬ 
nesses,  returned  and  sued  for  pardon.  Aston¬ 
ishing  as  it  may  seem,  this  was  actually  granted, 
and  he  was  once  more  installed  in  his  kingdom 
— which  confirms  us  in  the  belief  that  Sargon 
had  come  to  think  that  he  had  not  been  a 
free  agent  in  his  rebellion,  but  had  been  com¬ 
pelled  to  it  by  Rusas.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
two  rebels  who  had  joined  with  him  suffered 
severely  for  their  faithlessness.  Ashur-li’  of 
Karalla  was  slain,  his  people  deported  to 
Hamath,  and  his  land  turned  into  an  Assyrian 
province.  Itti  of  Allabra  and  his  family  were 
also  deported  into  Hamath,  and  a  new  vassal 
king  was  set  up  in  his  place.2  At  the  same 
time  the  district  of  Nikshamma  and  the  city 
of  Shurgadia,  whose  governor,  Shepa-sharru, 
had  rebelled,  were  reduced  and  added  to  the 
Assyrian  province  of  Parshua.3  In  this  year 
Sargon  also  invaded  western  Media  and  con¬ 
quered  the  governor  of  Kishesim,  whose  As¬ 
syrian  name,  Bel-shar-usur,  probably  points 
backward  to  the  influence  of  Tiglathpileser 
III  in  this  same  region.  Kishesim  was  thor¬ 
oughly  changed  in  every  particular.  Assyrian 
worship  was  introduced,  the  name  of  the  city 
changed  to  Kar-Nabu,  and  a  statue  of  Sargon 

1  Annals,  lines  60,  61,  General  Inscription,  41  (Winckler,  op.  cit., 
pp.  12,  13,  104,  105). 

2  Annals,  lines  55-57. 

3  Annals,  line  58. 


326  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


set  up.1  A  new  province  was  then  formed  of 
the  districts  of  Bit-Sagbat,  Bit-Khirmani,  Bit- 
Umargi,  and  of  several  other  cities,  and  Kar- 
Nabu  was  made  its  capital.2  Another  city 
by  the  name  of  Kharkhar,  whose  governor 
had  been  driven  out  by  its  populace,  was 
similarly  treated.  Its  name  was  changed  to 
Kar-Sharrukin  (SargonVburg),  and  it  was 
colonized  with  captives  and  also  made  the 
capital  of  a  newly  formed  province.3  This 
sort  of  campaigning  had  its  influence  on  the 
surrounding  country.  From  city  to  city  spread 
the  news  of  the  mighty  conqueror  and  of  his 
sweeping  changes,  and  from  different  parts  of 
Media  no  less  than  twenty-eight  native  princes 
came  to  Kar-Sharrukin  with  presents  to  Sargon, 
hoping  to  purchase  deliverance  from  like  treat¬ 
ment.4 

This  year  had  been  full  of  various  under¬ 
takings,  but  nearly  all  of  them  may  be  said 
to  deal  directly  or  indirectly  with  Rusas  of 
Urartu,  who,  even  while  these  easterly  under¬ 
takings  were  in  progress,  was  not  idle.  De¬ 
feated  in  his  plan  of  securing  peacefully  from 
Ullusunu  the  twenty-two  villages  which  had 
been  granted  him,  as  we  have  seen,  but  after¬ 
ward  recovered  by  Sargon,  he  took  them  by 
force.  This  brought  Sargon  back  in  715  with 

1  Annals,  lines  59,  60. 

2  Annals,  line  58. 

3  Annals,  lines  61-64. 

4  Annals,  line  74  (Winckler,  op.  cit .,  i,  pp.  16,  17). 


THE  REIGN  OF  SARGON  II 


327 


an  army  which  quickly  recaptured  the  lost 
territory,  which  was  then  supplied  with  special 
Assyrian  governors.  Daiukku,  a  subordinate 
governor  of  Ullusunu,  who  had  yielded  to  the 
solicitations  of  Rusas,  was  carried  off  to  Ha¬ 
math.1  The  suddenness  and  completeness  of 
this  victory  induced  Yanzu  of  Nairi  to  bring 
his  homage  to  Sargon.2  Meanwhile  the  province 
of  Kharkhar,  which  was  formed  but  a  year 
before,  had  rebelled  and  must  be  again  con¬ 
quered.  It  was  now  increased  in  size  by  the 
addition  of  territory  which  had  been  thoroughly 
Assyrianized,  and  the  city  of  Dur-Sharrukin 
was  heavily  fortified  as  an  outpost  against 
the  land  of  Media.  In  this  year  twenty-two 
Median  princes  offered  presents  to  Sargon3 
and  promised  an  annual  tribute  of  horses. 
All  these  campaigns  weakened  the  influence 
of  Rusas  over  his  allies,  and  so  the  way  was 
gradually  preparing  for  his  overthrow;  but 
the  time  had  not  come  this  year,  for  Sargon 
had  disturbances  to  settle  in  the  west. 

Mita  of  Mushke  had  interfered  with  Que 
(Cilicia),  and  had  taken  from  it  several  cities 
to  add  to  his  own  dominion,  which  were  readily 
restored.4 

1  Annals,  lines  74-77. 

2  Annals,  line  78. 

3  Annals,  lines  83-89;  General  Inscription,  lines  64-67  (Winckler, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  18,  19;  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  pp.  60,  61).  A  comparison  of 
these  two  passages  shows  a  discrepancy  in  the  figures,  the  former  giv¬ 
ing  the  number  of  Median  princes  at  twenty-two,  the  latter  thirty-four. 

*  Annals,  lines  92-94,  100. 


328  HISTOEY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYEIA 


An  expedition  into  Arabia  was  also  rendered 
necessary  for  the  collection  of  tribute.  The 
tribe  of  Khaiapa,  which  had  paid  tribute  since 
the  reign  of  Tiglathpileser  III,  now  refused 
to  do  so,  and  was  supported  by  the  tribes  of 
Tamud,  Ibadidi,  and  Marsiani.  Of  these 
Khaiapa  was  probably  the  most  northerly, 
being  settled  about  Medina,  while  the  others 
stretched  southward  below  Mecca.1  These  were 
all  conquered  easily  and  restored  to  subjection. 
It’amar  of  Saba,  Pir’u  (Pharaoh)  of  Egypt, 
who  may  have  been  Bokkhoris,2  and  Samsi, 
the  queen  of  Arabia,  whose  dominions  were 
in  the  extreme  northern  part  of  the  country, 
all  sent  gifts.3  This  latter  part  of  the  year 
probably  was  of  great  value  to  the  king  in 
the  revenue  which  it  yielded. 

In  the  next  year  (714)  the  campaign  against 
Rusas  of  Urartu  was  taken  up  in  earnest. 
No  Assyrian  campaign  was  ever  described  so 
minutely.  The  king  set  out  from  Calah  in 
the  month  of  Tammuz  (June- July)  and  marched 
toward  the  southeast,  crossing  the  upper  and 
lower  Zab,  and  plunging  at  once  into  a  rough 
mountain  region  of  Sumbi,  where  he  inspected 
his  troops.  From  there  he  crossed  the  moun¬ 
tain  pass  of  Baneh,  at  a  height  of  6,940  feet, 
traveling  by  the  same  road  as  the  modern 

1  See  Glaser,  Skizze  der  Geschichte  und  Geographie  Arabiens,  ii,  261,  2; 

and  compare  Winckler,  Geschichte,  p.  243. 

3  So  also  Breasted,  History  of  Egypt,  p.  550. 

3  Annals,  lines  97-99. 


THE  REIGN  OF  SARGON  II 


329 


caravans  from  Suleimania  to  Sakiz.  He  was 
now  out  upon  the  great  Iranian  plain  and  before 
him  lay  the  territory  of  the  Mannai,  and  its 
most  westerly  province  Surikash.  Here  he 
received  the  submission  of  Ullusunu,  who  pros¬ 
trated  himself  before  the  conqueror  and  pro¬ 
vided  abundant  stores  for  the  marching  troops. 
Sargon  took  pity  upon  the  distressed  Mannseans 
and  promised  to  deliver  them  from  the  people 
of  Urartu. 

From  Man  Sargon  advanced  slowly  and 
steadily  into  the  territories  of  Zikirtu,  where 
Mit’atti  was  still  holding  sway.  One  by  one 
the  cities  and  fortified  camps  were  taken  until 
Parda,  the  capital,  fell  into  Assyrian  hands. 
When  this  had  happened  Mit’atti  and  his  entire 
people  moved  swiftly  in  one  great  emigration 
out  of  the  country  and  were  seen  no  more. 
They  had  probably  come  out  of  the  steppes 
of  Russia  into  this  favored  district,  and  now 
returned  to  their  old  home.  The  army  was 
now  ready  to  attack  Rusas,  who  came  on  to 
meet  it.  In  the  first  engagement  he  was  de¬ 
feated  and  fled.1  Sargon  did  not  pursue  at 
once,  but  waited  to  make  sure  of  the  land 
which  was  now  deserted  by  the  people  of 
Urartu.  The  land  of  Man  was  entirely  covered 
in  marches,  that  every  sign  of  disloyalty  might 

1  Sargon’s  historian  (Annals,  line  109,  Winckler,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  22, 
23)  says  of  Rusas,  “He  mounted  a  mare  and  fled  into  his  mountains.” 
Flight  upon  a  mare’s  back  made  him  an  object  of  ridicule.  See  further 
above,  p.  275. 


330  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

be  rooted  out,  and  was  then  given  over  to 
Ullusunu. 

The  decisive  blow  to  the  fortunes  of  Rusas 
had  been  administered  amid  the  rough  and 
mountainous  country  east  of  Lake  Urumiyeh. 
Sargon  now  marched  unopposed  around  the 
northern  end  of  the  great  lake  and  went  on 
toward  the  northwest  by  the  caravan  route 
toward  Lake  Van,  which  he  passed  also  round 
by  the  north,  mentioning  Argishtiuna  and 
Qallania,1  the  chief  cities  of  Urartu,  though  not 
taking  or  destroying  them.  The  land  of  Urartu 
had  no  more  strength  to  oppose  anything  that 
Sargon  might  have  willed  to  do,  and  it  is  much 
to  his  honor  that  he  seems  to  have  shown 
some  mercy.  Rusas  looked  on,  perhaps,  from 
some  mountain  eyrie  and  saw  the  utter  collapse 
of  his  fortunes.  The  kingdom  which  his  fathers 
had  founded,  of  whom  he  was  no  unworthy 
follower,  was  being  divided  among  Assyrian 
states  or  added  directly  to  the  provinces  of 
the  empire.  For  him  there  was  no  further 
hope,  and  he  sought  peace  in  a  self-inflicted 
death.2 

From  Lake  Van  the  main  body  of  Sargon ’s 
forces  returned  directly  to  Assyria,  while  the 
king  with  some  infantry  and  a  thousand  horse¬ 
men  penetrated  the  mountain  fastnesses  be¬ 
tween  Lakes  Van  and  Urumiyeh  to  attack 


1  Thureau-Dangin,  op.  cit.,  p.  45,  line  287. 

2  Annals,  line  139. 


THE  REIGN  OF  SARGON  II 


33 1 


Musasu,  whose  prince  Urzana  had  gone  over 
from  Assyrian  allegiance  and  acknowledged  the 
overlordship  of  Urartu.  Sargon  seems  bitterly 
to  have  resented  this,  and  pours  out  hatred 
upon  the  renegade.  The  march  was  difficult, 
but  Sargon  surmounted  everything  and  entered 
the  city  to  lodge  in  the  palace  and  strip  it  of 
its  treasures.1 

Heavily  laden,  Sargon  returned  to  his  capital. 
It  was  a  campaign  which  staggers  the  imagina¬ 
tion  as  one  looks  upon  it.  The  distance  trav¬ 
ersed,  the  severity  of  the  countries,  the  mighty 
mountain  passes,  and  the  lonely  defiles,  the 
barbaric  mingling  of  savage  cruelty  and  of 
friendly  mercy — all  these  and  many  more  call 
to  fancy  scenes  and  men  with  a  vividness  never 
secured  from  any  inscriptions  of  Sargon’s 
predecessors. 

Rusas  left  a  son  who  succeeded  his  father  as 
king  of  Urartu,  or  Chaldia,  as  the  country 
was  called  by  its  own  people,  with  the  title 
of  Argistis  II.  He  found  only  a  small  kingdom 
left  for  him  to  rule,  about  Lake  Van  and  the 
upper  waters  of  the  Euphrates.  Long  and 
sturdily  had  Urartu  withstood  the  progress  of 
Assyria  in  war,  while  it,  nevertheless,  accepted 
Assyrian  civilization  and  even  adopted  the 
cumbersome  Assyrian  method  of  cuneiform 
writing.  The  Chaldians  had  even  formed  an 
empire  and  contested  the  supremacy  of  west- 


1  Annals,  lines  123-133;  General  Inscription,  lines  72-76. 


332  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


ern  Asia  with  the  Assyrians.  In  the  days 
of  Assyrian  weakness  they  had  grown  stronger, 
until  the  menace  to  Sargon  was  so  great  that 
he  had  to  plan  cautiously  and  act  decisively 
during  a  long  series  of  years  for  its  removal. 
He  had  now  stripped  them  of  all  their  southern 
and  western  possessions  and  shut  up  the  king 
amid  his  mountain  fastnesses,  from  which  he 
would  soon  venture  out  to  plunder  and  raid, 
but  without  hope  of  ever  again  mastering  so 
large  a  portion  of  western  Asia.  Sargon ’s 
slowly  maturing  plans  had  effectually  removed 
the  greatest  barrier  to  his  country’s  career 
of  conquest,  extension,  and  aggrandizement. 

For  the  next  three  years  Sargon  was  unable 
to  carry  out  any  great  schemes  of  conquest, 
because  he  was  absorbed  in  smaller  under¬ 
takings  intended  to  complete  the  pacification 
of  the  north  and  west.  The  first  of  these  was 
in  western  Media,  where  the  province  which 
had  taken  the  place  of  the  old  kingdom  of 
Karalla  rose  in  rebellion,  and,  having  driven 
out  the  Assyrian  governor,  set  up  as  king 
Amitasshi,  a  brother  of  the  old  king,  Ashur-li. 
The  new  arrangement  lasted  but  a  short  time, 
for  Sargon  soon  ended  the  rebellion.  The 
vassal  kings,  Ullusunu  of  Man,  Dalta  of  Ellipi, 
and  Ninib-aplu-iddin  of  Allabra,  all  sent  their 
tribute  to  the  triumphant  Sargon. 

In  the  northwest,  also,  Sargon  had  a  very 
disagreeable  task.  The  land  of  Tabal  had 


THE  REIGN  OF  SARGON  II 


333 


been  conquered  by  Tiglathpileser  IV  and  the 
king  deposed.  In  his  place  Tiglathpileser  set 
up  a  man  of  humble  origin,  named  Khulle. 
Bound  by  ties  of  gratitude  or  of  necessity, 
Khulle  paid  his  annual  tribute  until  his  death 
and  remained  faithful  to  the  Assyrians,  who 
had  made  him  what  he  was.  Sargon  trusted 
him  as  fully  as  Tiglathpileser,  and  even  added 
to  his  dominion  the  territory  of  Bit-Buru-tash. 
When  he  died  his  son,  Ambaridi,  or  Ambaris,1 
was  confirmed  by  Sargon  as  king  in  his  stead. 
So  completely  was  he  trusted  that  Khilakki 
(Cilicia)  was  further  added  to  his  territory 
and  Sargon ’s  own  daughter  was  given  him  to 
wife.2  In  spite  of  all  this  he  was  secretly,  and 
later  publicly,  faithless  to  Assyria,  and  joined 
the  coalition  of  Rusas  and  Mita,  to  whom  he 
gave  aid  in  their  various  undertakings  against 
Assyria.  His  day  of  punishment  had  now 
arrived.  His  land  was  devastated,  colonized, 
and  then  made  into  a  new  province  of  the 
empire,3  and  he,  with  his  followers,  was  carried 
oft*  to  Assyria. 

In  the  following  year  (712)  a  very  similar 
case  occurred  in  the  district  of  Meliddu.  While 
Sargon  was  busily  engaged  in  war  Tarkhunazi 
of  Meliddu  conquered  Gunzinanu  of  Kammanu 
(Comana),  one  of  Sargon’s  tributaries,  and 
seized  his  territory.  This  had  been  done  in 


1  In  Annals,  line  168,  he  is  called  Ambaridi,  but  in  line  175  Ambaris. 

2  General  Inscription,  line  30. 

3  Annals,  lines  175-178. 


334  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


reliance  upon  the  help  of  Urartu.  Sargon 
now  overran  the  land  and  destroyed  the  cap¬ 
ital,  Melid.  Tarkhunazi  for  a  time  defended 
himself  in  a  fortress,  Tulgarimme,  but  was 
taken,  and,  together  with  his  troops,  deported 
to  Assyria.1  His  territory  was  then  divided. 
Melid  was  annexed  to  Kummukh,2  while  the 
rest  of  the  country  was  repopulated  and  formed 
into  a  new  province.3  One  more  year  was 
required  before  this  northern  territory  was 
fully  reduced  to  subjection.  In  711  there 
was  an  uprising  in  Gurgum,4  a  small  Hittite 
state.  The  king,  Tarkhulara,  was  killed  by 
his  own  son,  Muttallu,  who  thus  made  himself 
ruler.  Sargon  soon  appeared  with  a  small 
body  of  troops,  and  carried  off  Muttallu  with 
his  followers  to  Assyria.  His  land  was  like- 
wise  made  into  a  province. 

While  Sargon  was  engaged  in  these  petty 
but  annoying  wars  with  small  states  Egypt 
was  again  plotting  to  gain  some  kind  of  foot¬ 
hold  in  Palestine.  Ashdod  was  now  chosen 
as  the  starting  point  for  another  effort.  In 
this  city  Sargon  had  removed  the  king,  Azuri, 
for  failure  to  pay  tribute,  and  had  set  up  his 
brother,  Akhimiti,  in  his  stead.  Under  the 
leadership  of  a  man  named  Yaman,  or  Yat- 

1  Annals,  lines  183-187;  General  Inscription,  lines  79-81. 

2  Annals,  lines  194,  195. 

3  Annals,  line  189. 

4  The  name  is  Gurgum,  not  Gamgtim,  as  is  sometimes  read  (so  e.  g. 

Johns,  Ancient  Assyria,  p.  117).  It  appears  as  in  the  Bar 

Rekub  inscription. 


THE  REIGN  OF  SARGON  II 


335 


nani,1  who  was  plainly  inspired  from  Egypt,  a 
rebellion  began  in  which  Akhimiti  lost  his 
life.  By  some  means  Philistia,  Moab,  Edom, 
and,  most  surprising  of  all,  Judah  were  drawn 
into  this  new  opposition  to  Assyria.  Hezekiali 
was  now  king  of  Judah,  and  in  this  fresh  union 
with  Egypt  he  was  flying  in  the  teeth  of  the 
advice  and  warnings  of  Isaiah,  his  ablest  coun¬ 
selor.  Sargon  felt  the  importance  of  this  new 
uprising,  and  at  once  hastened  either  himself 
or  by  deputy,  in  the  person  of  his  Tartan,2  to 
end  the  rebellion.  Ashdod,  Gath,  and  Ash- 
dudimmu  were  easily  occupied  by  the  Assyrians. 
The  other  states  of  Palestine  seem  to  have 
feared  to  join  in  the  war  when  it  was  on,  and 
Egypt  sent  no  help.  The  inhabitants  of  these 
cities  were  carried  away  and  other  captives 
settled  in  their  places.3  This  campaign  so 
thoroughly  stamped  out  all  opposition  in  the 
west  that  it  might  for  a  time  safely  be  left 
to  itself. 

If  now  we  look  back  over  Sargon’s  reign  up 
to  this  point,  we  shall  see  that  his  only  direct 
gains  to  Assyrian  territory  had  been  in  the 

1  The  variation  Yaman,  Yatnani,  is  the  same  as  that  found  in  the 
name  of  the  island  of  Cyprus  and  the  Cypriotes.  It  is  therefore  natural 
to  suppose  that  Yaman  here  is  a  race,  rather  than  a  personal  name, 
the  leader  being  a  Creek  mercenary  from  Cyprus  (so  Winckler,  Die 
Keilschrifttexte  Jargon's  i,  xxx,  note  2).  Winckler  has,  however,  since 
come  to  think  that  this  man  was  an  Arab,  a  man  from  Yemen  ( Musri 
Meluhha,  Mu' in,  p.  26,  note  1).  The  former  view  is  preferable.  See 
further  Olmstead,  Western  Asia  in  the  Days  of  Sargon,  p.  77. 

2  Isa.  xx,  1. 

»  Annals,  lines  215-217;  General  Inscription,  90-110. 


336  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

land  of  Urartu.  To  Shalmaneser  rather  than 
to  him  belongs  the  credit  of  securing  Samaria, 
though  its  actual  fall  came  after  Sargon  had 
taken  the  throne.  Indirectly,  however,  his 
gains  had  been  great.  He  had  greatly  strength¬ 
ened  the  Assyrian  control  from  east  to  west 
over  a  wide  circle  of  country,  and  had  so  estab¬ 
lished  the  outposts  of  the  empire  that  he  might 
feel  safe  from  invasion.  It  must  be  remem¬ 
bered,  however,  that  he  was  even  yet  governing 
a  territory  much  smaller  than  that  which 
Tiglathpileser  IV  and  Shalmaneser  V  had  con¬ 
trolled.  Babylonia  was  still  in  the  possession 
of  the  Chaldeans,  and  Sargon  was  bereft  of 
the  rarest  and  most  honored  title — king  of 
Babylon.  But  he  was  not  satisfied  with  this 
state  of  affairs,  and  had  probably  planned  long 
and  carefully  in  order  to  its  complete  over¬ 
throw.  Now  that  his  borders  were  safe  on 
the  north  and  west,  and  the  annual  tribute 
over  the  great  empire  was  fairly  well  assured, 
the  time  seemed  to  have  arrived  for  his  greatest 
work. 

When  Sargon,  in  721,  after  the  battle  of 
Durilu,  left  Merodach-baladan  to  rule  undis¬ 
turbed  in  Babylon  he  took  upon  himself  a 
great  risk.  There  was  a  grave  possibility  that 
the  adroit  Chaldean  might  so  establish  himself 
in  the  kingdom  that  the  Assyrians  could  never 
hope  to  dislodge  him  again.  But  Sargon 
builded  very  wisely  in  this,  for  there  were 


THE  IiEIGN  OE  SARGON  II 


337 


more  causes  for  discontent  in  Babylonia  than 
of  satisfaction,  and  Merodach-baladan  was  much 
more  likely  to  ruin  his  prospects  of  a  peaceable 
reign  than  to  improve  them.  His  status  was 
peculiar  and  dangerous.  He  never  could  have 
conquered  Babylon  in  the  sole  reliance  upon 
his  own  Chaldean  forces,  but  was  compelled 
to  utilize  not  only  Elamite  but  also  Aramaean 
allies,  the  latter  being  the  same  half-nomad 
tribes  which  had  been  a  disturbing  factor  in 
former  times.  So  long  as  he  was  threatened 
by  Assyrian  armies  Merodach-baladan  was  able 
to  hold  together  these  ill-assorted  followers; 
self-preservation  against  a  common  enemy  who 
might  blot  them  out  one  at  a  time  made  them 
cautious.  But  as  soon  as  all  danger  from 
Assyria  was  withdrawn  by  Sargon’s  occupation 
in  other  quarters  these  Elamites  and  Aramaeans 
began  to  clamor  for  a  share  in  the  spoil  of 
Babylonia.  They  had  not  ventured  all  in  the 
service  of  Merodach-baladan  without  a  well- 
founded  hope  of  participation  in  the  wealth 
which  the  centuries  had  heaped  up.  Merodach- 
baladan  was  not  to  be  suffered  to  wear  the 
title  of  king  of  Babylon  while  his  followers, 
who  had  suffered  that  he  might  win  it,  lay 
in  poverty.  It  would  be  impossible  to  satisfy 
these  men  with  anything  short  of  a  license  for 
free  plunder,  and  this  could  not  be  given 
without  the  ruining  of  the  land  over  which 
he  hoped  to  rule.  Besides  this  Merodach- 


338  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


baladan  could  not  give  ever  so  little  to  his 
Chaldeans  and  Elamites  without  raising  bitter 
opposition  to  his  rule  among  the  native  Baby¬ 
lonians,  and  especially  among  the  priesthood — 
perhaps  the  wealthiest  class  in  the  country. 

In  these  opposing  wishes  there  was  abundant 
material  for  a  flame  of  civil  war  which  would 
destroy  the  ambitions  of  the  new  king  of  Baby¬ 
lon,  and  for  this  Sargon  had  left  the  land  free. 
Merodach-baladan  probably  desired  earnestly 
to  strengthen  his  position  in  Babylonia  with 
the  natives  by  a  reign  of  order  and  peace, 
leaving  them  in  undisturbed  possession  of  their 
estates.  This  was,  however,  impossible,  and  he 
ventured  on  a  career  of  plunder.  Property 
holders  were  removed  from  Sippar,  Nippur, 
Babylon,  and  Borsippa  into  Chaldea,  where 
they  were  held  in  some  kind  of  bondage,  while 
their  lands  and  other  wealth  were  handed  over 
to  colonists  out  of  the  number  of  Merodach- 
baladan’s  rapacious  and  unthinking  allies.1  This 
policy  satisfied  neither  party  to  the  compact, 
and  Merodach-baladan  found  himself  sur¬ 
rounded  on  every  side  by  enemies  when  he 
sadly  needed  friends.  The  Babylonians  were 
always  a  fickle  folk  at  best,  and  apparently 
delighted  in  changes  of  dynasty.  A  restless 
spirit  was  ascribed  to  them,  centuries  after,  in 
the  Mohammedan  period,  and  their  history  as 
we  have  followed  it  to  this  point  seems  clearly 


1  Annals,  lines  359-364,  Winckler,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  58-61. 


THE  REIGN  OF  S AIvG ON  II 


339 


to  show  that  they  were  of  this  temper  now.1 
Nevertheless,  they  valued  highly  their  ancient 
institutions  and  held  in  high  esteem  the  honor 
of  their  royal  titles.  The  priesthood  must 
always  be  a  conservative  force  in  any  com¬ 
munity,  and  the  Babylonian  priesthood  in 
charge  of  the  worship  of  Marduk,  and  so 
invested  with  the  power  of  making  kings,  who 
must  take  hold  of  the  hands  of  the  god,  main¬ 
tained  with  enthusiasm  the  ancient  customs. 
At  this  time  they  found  less  of  sympathy  among 
the  Chaldeans,  Aramaeans,  and  Elamites  than 
among  the  Assyrians.  Tiglathpileser  IV  had  so 
greatly  valued  the  priests  and  the  honors  which 
they  had  to  bestow  that  he  twice  visited  Baby¬ 
lon  in  order  to  take  the  hands  of  the  god  and 
be  proclaimed  king,  and  Shalmaneser  V  had 
even  more  than  followed  his  example.  Sargon 
might  well  be  expected  to  have  similar  ideas 
and  hopes.  To  him,  therefore,  the  Babylonian 
priesthood  and  all  the  other  wealthy  classes 
which  had  lost  home  or  possessions  looked  as 
a  possible  deliverer  from  the  barbarous  Chal¬ 
deans  and  Elamites. 

Sargon  was  therefore  doubly  prepared  for  an 
attack  on  Merodach-baladan.  He  had  made 
his  own  empire  so  strong  and  safe  that  he  might 
leave  it  without  fear,  and  he  was  certain  of 
a  friendly  reception  from  the  Babylonians. 
His  plan  was  first  to  conquer  the  allies  of 


1  Wincklcr,  Die  Keilschrifttexte  Sargon' s ,  i,  p.  xxxii. 


340  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


Merodach-baladan  and  then  to  strike  the  de¬ 
fenseless  Chaldean  himself.  An  army  was  sent 
southward  to  overcome  the  Aramaeans  living 
along  the  Elamite  and  Babylonian  borders. 
These  were  speedily  conquered.  The  Gambuli 
and  the  Aramaean  tribes  of  Ru’a,  Khindaru, 
Yatburu,  and  Puqudu  were  organized  into  a 
new  Assyrian  province,  with  Dur-Nabu,  for¬ 
merly  known  as  Dur-Atkhara,  one  of  Merodach- 
baladan’s  fortresses,  as  capital.1  This  successful 
movement  cut  off  Merodach-baladan  from  his 
former  allies  in  Elam.  When  the  Assyrians 
crossed  the  Euphrates  and  captured  the  small 

Babylonian  state  of  Bit-Dakkuri,  Merodach- 

# 

baladan  did  not  venture  upon  a  fight,  but 
fled  into  Yatburu,  whence  he  could  communicate 
with  the  king  of  Elam.  But  Shutur-nankhundi,2 
who  now  ruled  in  Elam  in  the  room  of  Khum- 
banigash,  was  not  eager  to  help  Merodach- 
baladan,  and,  though  he  prudently  accepted 
the  gifts  which  had  been  sent  to  him,  offered 
no  help  of  any  kind.3  The  Aramseans  could 
not  help  him  while  an  Assyrian  army  held 
them  in  helpless  subjection,  and  the  Elamites 
would  not.  Merodach-baladan  was  powerless 
with  his  small  army  to  meet  SargoiTs  seasoned 
veterans.  He  therefore  fled  southward  into 
his  old  homeland  and  fortified  himself  in  Iqbi- 

1  Annals,  lines  264-271  and  271-277. 

2  So  the  Assyrians  write  the  name,  which  in  Elamite  is  Shutruk-nak- 
hunte. 

3  Annals,  lines  289-294, 


THE  REIGN  OF  SARGON  II  341 

Bel,  where  he  spent  the  winter,  which  had 
now  begun.1  The  Babylonians,  relieved  of 
their  oppressor,  hailed  Sargon  as  a  deliverer. 
They  organized  a  religious  and  civil  procession 
which  went  to  Dur-Ladinna  to  escort  the 
saviour  of  the  country  to  Babylon.  Sargon 
entered  the  ancient  city,  and  in  all  things 
conducted  himself  as  a  legitimate  king  of 
Babylon.  He  offered  the  required  sacrifices;2 
he  restored  the  canal  of  Borsippa,  which  had 
fallen  down  ;3  and  by  these  two  acts  satisfied  the 
priesthood  and  helped  the  country’s  commerce. 

Sargon  was  now  able  to  have  himself  pro¬ 
claimed  king  of  Babylon,  and  might  take  the 
god’s  hands  and  fulfill  the  required  ceremonies 
on  New  Year’s  Day  of  the  year  709.  If  he 
did  this,  however,  he  would  have  to  repeat 
it  year  by  year,  and  that  might  be  in  the  high¬ 
est  degree  inconvenient,  if  not  impossible.  He 
could  not  hold  the  priesthood  faithful  to  him¬ 
self  if  he  did  not  perform  the  annual  ceremonies, 
and  though  he  could  doubtless  compel  their 
obedience  without  winning  their  hearts  it  would 
be  dangerous  and  inexpedient.  He  was  too 
wise  to  transfer  the  capital  of  his  reunited 
empire  to  Babylon,  and  he  therefore  adopted 
an  expedient  which  satisfied  both  parties — the 
Assyrians  and  the  Babylonians.  He  adopted 
the  title  of  “ shakkanak ” — that  is,  governor,  or 


1  Annals,  lines  294-296. 

2  Annals,  lines  299-300. 

3  Annals,  lines  302-304. 


342  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


viceroy — instead  of  king  of  Babylon,  and  for 
this  he  would  not  be  compelled  to  renew  the 
ceremony  year  by  year.  In  the  month  of 
Nisan,  at  the  great  feast  of  Bel,  he  took  the 
hands  of  Bel  and  Nabu  and  was  proclaimed 
shakkanak  of  Babylon.  In  all  respects  he  had 
as  much  power  and  influence  as  though  he 
were  called  king.1 

In  the  next  month  Sargon  began  his  cam¬ 
paign  against  Merodach-baladan.  The  unfor¬ 
tunate  Chaldean  had  withdrawn  in  the  early 
spring  or  late  winter  from  Iqbi-Bel  to  his  old 
city  of  Bit-Yakin,  where  he  employed  his  time 
in  the  operation  of  extensive  fortifications 
against  Sargon,  whose  invasion  he  must  have 
been  continually  expecting.  He  opened  a  canal 
from  the  Euphrates  and  filled  the  country 
about  the  city  with  water,  breaking  down  ail 
the  bridges,  so  that  no  approach  to  the  city 
was  possible.  Sargon  found  a  way  to  over¬ 
come  this  difficulty,  though  he  does  not  en¬ 
lighten  us  as  to  his  method.  The  city,  once 
attacked,  soon  fell,  and  Merodach-baladan,  who 
had  been  wounded  in  the  first  assault,  made 
good  his  escape  to  Elam.  An  army  from  the 
Puqudu  and  the  Sute,  who  were  coming  to 
help  Merodach-baladan,  was  then  overcome  and 
the  city  of  Bit-Yakin  first  plundered  and  then 
destroyed.2  In  the  city  Sargon  found  the 


1  Winckler,  Geschichte,  p.  127. 

2  Annals,  lines  347-359. 


THE  REIGN  OF  SARGON  II  343 

rich  men  of  Babylonia  who  had  been  deprived 
of  their  property  in  order  that  Merodach- 
baladan  might  reward  the  men  who  had  made 
him  king.  They  were  sent  back  to  their  homes 
and  their  property  restored.  Furthermore,  the 
priesthood  received  a  rich  reward  for  their 
share  in  Sargon’s  triumphs  by  the  return  of 
gods  whom  Merodach-baladan  had  taken  away 
and  the  restoration  of  the  elaborate  temple 
worship  in  Ur,  Uruk,  Eridu,  Larsa,  and  other 
places  of  less  moment,  while  the  tithes  to  the 
temples  were  newly  revised  and  imposed  upon 
the  people.  The  land  of  Bit-Yakin  was  placed 
beyond  any  opportunities,  it  would  seem,  for 
further  rebellion,  by  the  deportation  of  a  por¬ 
tion  of  its  inhabitants  to  Kummukh,  from  which 
came  captives  to  take  their  place.  The  land 
was  then  turned  into  an  Assyrian  province  to 
be  governed  from  Babylon  and  Gambuli.1 
Awed  by  such  proceedings,  King  Uperi,  of  the 
island  of  Dilmun,  in  the  Persian  Gulf,  sent 
gifts. 

By  this  campaign,  as  much  by  the  peaceful 
operations  which  attended  it  as  by  the  success 
of  arms,  Babylonia  was  completely  pacified, 
and  was  now  ruled  easily  by  the  Assyrians 
for  several  years.  Sargon  had  completely  re¬ 
stored  the  old  order  of  things  against  great 
odds,  and  with  extreme  difficulty. 

While  Sargon  was  engaged  thus  in  Babylonia 


1  Annals,  lines  366,  367,  369. 


344  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


his  representatives  were  hardly  less  successful 
elsewhere.  In  the  far  west  the  governor  of 
the  Assyrian  province  of  Que,  imitating  his 
royal  master,  Sargon,  invaded  the  kingdom  of 
Mushke.  The  people  of  Mushke  were  among 
the  traditional  enemies  of  Assyria.  They  had 
been  opposed  to  Tiglathpileser  I,  and  they 
had  a  large  share  in  stirring  up  opposition  in 
Syria  to  later  Assyrian  kings.  For  a  long 

time  the  Assyrians  had  not  suffered  any  inter¬ 
ference  at  their  hands.  Their  dominions  were 
bounded  now  on  the  south  and  east  by  the 
Taurus  and  Anti-Taurus,  and  their  ruler  was 
Mita.  The  Assyrian  governor  met  with  such 
success  in  conquest  and  plunder  that  Mita 
was  forced  to  send  an  embassy  to  Sargon, 

who  was  then  on  the  borders  of  Elam,  to  sue 
for  peace.1  At  the  same  time  Sargon  received 

gifts  from  seven  kings  of  Cyprus,  though 

what  they  may  have  feared  does  not  appear.2 
Years  after  (708  B.  C.)  Sargon  acknowledged 
their  gifts  with  a  present  of  a  black  marble 
stele  engraved  with  his  portrait. 

At  this  same  period  also  there  was  a  new 
spasm  of  vigor  in  the  almost  defunct  empire 
of  Urartu.  Argistis  was  now  king  over  what 
remained  of  the  once  powerful  empire,  and 
determined  to  make  an  effort  to  regain 
some  of  the  lost  possessions.  He  induced 

Annals,  lines  371-373;  General  Inscription,  lines  150-153. 

2  Annals,  lines  383-388;  General  Inscription,  lines  145,  146;  Stele, 
col.  ii. 


THE  REIGN  OF  SARGON  II 


345 


Muttallu,  prince  of  Kummukh,  to  join  in  a 
confederation.  Before  anything  could  be  accom¬ 
plished  the  news  was  brought  that  Bit-Yakin 
had  fallen  and  an  Assyrian  army  was  already 
on  its  way  to  the  north.  Muttallu  was  so 
discomfited  by  this  news  that  he  sought  safety 
in  flight.  His  family  and  all  his  treasures 
fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Assyrians,  and  his 
land  was  henceforth  organized  and  adminis¬ 
tered  as  a  province.  This  fall  of  Kummukh 
happened  at  just  the  right  time  to  enable  the 
interchange  of  inhabitants  with  Bit-Yakin, 
which  was  mentioned  above.1 

In  708  we  reach  the  last  campaign  of  which 
Sargon  has  left  his  own  account.  Dalta,  prince 
of  Elippi,  who  had  acknowledged  the  supremacy 
of  Assyria,  was  dead,  and  there  was  a  strife 
about  the  succession  between  his  sons,  Nibe 
and  Ishpabara.  The  former  appealed  to  Elam 
for  help,  which  he  received,  and  by  which  he 
was  able  to  drive  out  Ishpabara.  The  latter 
then,  on  his  part,  appealed  to  Sargon,  who  was 
the  lawful  overlord  of  the  country.  Sargon 
at  once  responded  by  sending  an  army  which 
conquered  Nibe  and  his  Elamite  allies,  cap¬ 
tured  his  capital  city,  Marubishti,  and  took 
him  prisoner  to  Assyria.  The  land  was  then 
set  once  more  in  order,  with  Ishpabara  as  king.2 

‘Annals,  lines  392-401;  General  Inscription,  lines  113-117.  See 
page  176,  above. 

*  Annals,  lines  402-413,  Winckler,  op.  cit.,  i,  pp.  68-71;  General  In¬ 
scription,  lines  117,  121,  ibid.,  pp.  118-121. 


346  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


But  though  the  official  accounts  of  the 
wars  have  ceased  we  have  nevertheless  in  a 
series  of  letters  most  vivid  accounts  of  the 
happenings  that  followed.  During  this  same 
year  (708)  Argistis  moved  southward,  clearly 
purposing  to  retrieve  the  losses  of  his  father 
and  to  turn  back  into  his  own  kingdom  the 
provinces  that  had  been  lost.  At  Elissadu 
his  forces  were  increased  by  a  general  levy 
from  various  parts  of  Armenia,1  and  the  sinews 
of  war  renewed  by  a  tribute  from  the  Zikirti. 
Whether  because  he  felt  himself  too  weak, 
or  because  there  was  an  early  season  of  bad 
weather,  Argistis  did  not  advance,  though  it 
was  now  only  Elul  (September),  but  waited 
until  the  spring  of  the  next  year  (707).  This 
hesitation  was  fatal  to  his  hopes  and  dreams, 
for  in  that  spring  the  existence  of  his  kingdom 
was  threatened  by  an  invasion  of  wandering 
Iranians  who  had  come  over  the  Caucasus, 
seeking  new  homes,  and  threatening  to  engulf 
the  civilization  of  Western  Asia.  These  were 
called  Gimmirai  by  the  Assyrians,  and  Gorner 
by  the  Hebrews,  and  were  later  to  be  known 
as  the  Cimmerians  by  the  Greeks  and  Cimbri 
by  the  Romans,  and  it  is  one  branch  of  them 
that  probably  at  last  pushed  far  into  Wales 
and  there  were  known  as  the  Cymry.  Argistis 
was  compelled  to  meet  the  threat  of  their  ad- 

1  British  Museum  81-2-4,  60,  Harper’s  Letters,  No.  492,  Johns,  Baby¬ 
lonian  and  Assyrian  Laws,  Contracts  and  Letters  (1904),  p.  341.  This 
letter  was  written  by  Ashur-risua. 


THE  REIGN  OF  SARGON  II 


347 


vance,  and  turning  away  from  a  southern 
advance  went  northward  to  meet  the  Cim¬ 
merians,  who  defeated  him  in  the  land  of  Gamir 
and  at  one  fell  blow  ended  every  possibility 
of  the  restoration  of  real  power  in  the  destinies 
of  the  world  to  the  kingdom  of  Urartu.1  The 
Cimmerians,  however,  pushed  on  and  made 
their  chief  settlement  in  Cappadocia,  and  did 
not  again  threaten  either  Urartu  or  Assyria 
directly. 

In  706  Sargon  made  an  expedition  against 
Tabal,  and  in  705  met  the  Cimmerians  who 
were  now  under  the  leadership  of  Eshpai  the 
Kulummite,  and  must  have  passed  from  the 
stage  of  wandering  hordes  into  some  sort  of 
military  organization.  In  the  battle  Sargon 
fell,  and  apparently  his  personal  camp  was 
taken.2  His  body  was  recovered  and  sent 
back  to  Assyria,  where  his  son  Sennacherib 
buried  it  with  all  honors.  The  sword  had  slipped 
from  the  hand  that  had  wielded  it  as  none 
other  had  ever  done  before  among  his  pred¬ 
ecessors  upon  the  Assyrian  throne.  He  had 
indeed  reached  to  the  full  the  warlike  am¬ 
bitions  of  his  life.  He  had  reunited  Babylonia 
to  the  empire  and  brought  it  into  complete 

1  The  reports  of  this  decisive  fight  were  sent  by  various  Assyrian 
officers  to  Sennacherib,  who  passed  them  on  to  Sargon,  his  father.  See 
especially  British  Museum  K.  485,  Harper’s  Letters ,  No.  112.  See 
Olmstead,  Western  Asia  in  the  Days  of  Sargon ,  p.  156. 

2  This  is  not  perfectly  clear,  for  the  tablet  (II  R.  69)  is  badly  broken. 
It  has  been  collated  afresh  by  Delitzsch  ( Beitrtxge  zur  Assyriologie,  i, 
615  n.). 


348  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


subjection,  so  that  it  was  as  easily  ruled  as 
Assyria  itself.  He  had  ended  the  Hittite 
empire,  a  great  plague  spot  in  his  predecessor’s 
maps.  He  had  crushed  the  empire  of  Urartu, 
or  Chaldia,  and  so  rendered  safe  his  own  north¬ 
ern  border.  He  had  brought  into  safe  subjec¬ 
tion  all  the  troublesome  Syrian  states.  There 
were  indeed  no  other  undertakings  which  he 
might  reasonably  hope  to  accomplish  which 
it  would  be  wise  to  begin. 

The  works  of  peace  in  Sargons  reign  were 
as  brilliant  as  his  campaigns  had  been.  He  was 
not  content  merely  with  the  repairing  of  palaces 
and  temples,  or  even  with  their  rebuilding, 
as  were  most  of  the  Assyrian  kings  who  were 
before  him.  He  undertook  the  colossal  task 
of  founding  a  new  city  which  should  bear  his 
own  name,  Dur-Shar-rukin  (Sargon’s-burg).  The 
city  was  rectangular  in  form  enclosed  within 
walls  nearly  two  thousand  yards  in  length. 
The  walls,  resting  upon  rubble  between  stone 
facings,  were  of  unburned  brick  and  no  less 
than  eighty  feet  thick,  and  of  unknown  height, 
with  one  hundred  and  fifty  towers.  There 
were  eight  gates  each  named  in  honor  of  an 
Assyrian  deity,  and  the  entrances  were  guarded 
by  great  winged  bulls  with  human  heads, 
carved  in  stone  and  weighing  forty  tons  each, 
flanked  within  the  gate  by  a  human  figure 
with  wings,  holding  a  basket  in  his  left  hand 
and  a  cone  in  the  right.  Within  the  city  he 


THE  REIGN  OF  SARGON  II 


349 


erected  a  vast  palace  which  must  have  occu¬ 
pied  years  in  the  building.  It  had  fourteen 
courts  and  eighty-seven  rooms,  and  was  divided 
into  four  sections,  which  have  been  assigned, 
with  quite  probable  correctness,  to  servants, 
officials,  priests  and  women.  The  palace  walls 
varied  here  and  there  from  twelve  to  twenty- 
eight  feet  in  thickness,  and  the  roofs  would 
appear  to  have  been  vaulted,1  though  there 
is  evidence  that  in  Sennacherib’s2  reign  the 
use  of  domed  roofs  had  begun.  Its  walls 
were  covered  on  the  inside  with  magnificent 
inscriptions  recounting  the  great  deeds  of  his 
reign.  These  were  so  admirable  in  their  execu¬ 
tion  as  to  give  us  a  strong  impression  of  the 
artistic  skill  of  the  age  which  Sargon  had  made 
a  conquering  age.  In  707  the  palace  was 
finished  and  the  city  ready  for  the  entrance 
of  the  gods  who  were  to  transform  it  from  a 
vast  and  beautiful  pile  of  bricks  into  a  real 
place  of  residence.  In  706  the  new  capital 
city  was  dedicated  as  a  royal  residence  and 
the  king  entered  his  real  palace  in  which  he 
was  to  dwell  in  some  peace  for  but  a  short 
time.  In  705  he  died,  as  we  have  seen,  in 
battle,  and  the  only  intelligible  word  of  his 
passing  that  has  come  down  the  centuries  to 
us  is  that  he  “was  not  buried  in  his  house.”3 

1  See  the  evidence  briefly  set  forth  in  Handcock,  Mesopotamian 
Archaeology,  p.  153. 

2  See  Handcock,  p.  155. 

4  ina  biti-Su  la  kib-ru,  K.  4730,  line  9.  Winckler,  Keilschrifttexte, 


350  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


The  building  of  Sargon’s-burg,  though  the 
most  pretentious  of  his  works,  was  only  one 
of  many  building  enterprises,  several  of  great 
size.  During  most  of  his  reign  the  king  lived 
and  held  court  at  Calah.  There  he  resided 
in  a  palace  erected  originally  by  Ashurnazirpal 
III,  which  was  rebuilt  by  Sargon,  and  richly 
adorned  with  the  booty  taken  from  Carchemish. 
At  Nineveh  he  restored  the  temple  to  Nabu 
and  Marduk  and  his  building  bricks  have 
been  found  in  its  ruins.* 1 

In  the  magnificence  of  his  building  opera¬ 
tions  he  probably  excelled  all  the  kings  who 
preceded  him.  Certainly  no  ruins  of  a  former 
age  yet  found  approach  the  magnificence  of 
the  great  palaces  which  he  built  in  the  city 
which  bore  his  name.  In  all  other  works  he 
is  naturally  brought  into  comparison  and  con¬ 
trast  with  Tiglathpileser  IV.  Like  him,  he 
was  great  in  the  planning  and  organization 
of  great  campaigns,  and  probably  excelled  in 
the  patient  and  slow  moving  on  the  outworks 
and  allies  of  an  enemy’s  country  before  making 
the  final  attack.  He  was  also  greater  in  the 
successful  carrying  out  of  great  battles  and 
sieges.  For  there  is  nothing  in  the  campaigns 
of  Tiglathpileser  which  equals  the  taking  of 
Bit-Yakin.  As  an  administrator  over  the  des- 

ii,  p.  52.  Altorientalische  Forschungen,  i,  p.  411.  Winckler’s  attempt 
to  connect  this  event  with  the  passage  Isa.  14.  4-20  is  not  convincing. 
(See  Winc.kler,  Geschichte  Israels,  p.  183.) 

1  Winckler,  Sargon,  i,  195. 


THE  REIGN  OF  SARGON  II 


351 


tinies  of  diverse  peoples  he  is  in  every  way 
worthy  of  his  predecessor.  In  the  carrying 
out  of  the  plan  of  colonization  and  deporta- 
tion  he  far  exceeded  the  limits  which  marked 
the  labors  of  Tiglathpileser.  But  it  must  be 
said  that  in  originality  of  idea  and  of  plan  he 
was  far  behind  Tiglathpileser.  It  was  he,  and 
not  Sargon,  who  invented  this  method  of  dealing 
with  turbulent  populations.  Sargon  was  only 
building  on  the  foundations  laid  by  another, 
and  it  is  easy  to  show  in  many  cases  that  he 
is  the  imitator  and  not  the  originator.  Never¬ 
theless,  there  should  be  no  diminution  of  his 
fame  as  a  conqueror  and  king.  If  Tiglath¬ 
pileser  had  planned  the  empire,  now  become 
the  greatest  power  in  the  world,  it  was  Sargon 
who  had  built  much  of  it  and  rebuilt  nearly 
all  the  rest.  Again  had  a  usurper  surpassed 
the  greatest  deeds  of  a  legitimate  king,  and 
made  his  name  immortal  in  his  country’s 
annals. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB 

In  the  same  month  in  which  Sargon  died, 
and  on  the  twelfth  day  of  the  month  (Ab, 
end  of  July),  Sennacherib1  (704-682)  ascended 
the  throne.  He  was  the  son  of  Sargon,  who 
had  so  well  governed  his  land  and  so  thor¬ 
oughly  settled  his  power  and  control  over 
it  that  no  attempt  was  made  to  disturb  the 
order  of  succession  from  father  to  son.  But, 
though  he  succeeded  to  the  inheritance  of  the 
great  empire  without  trouble,  there  were  tre¬ 
mendous  difficulties  to  be  settled  at  once. 

The  priesthood  of  Babylonia  and  in  general 

the  Babylonian  people  were  waiting  to  see 

what  position  he  would  take  up  with  reference 

to  the  proud  and  ancient  people  who  felt 
,  * 

1  The  principal  authorities  for  the  reign  of  Sennacherib  are:  (a)  The 
Taylor  Prism  (usually  called  Cylinder)  published  I  R.  i,  37-42,  and 
also  Abel-Winckler,  Keilschrifttexte,  pp.  17-32  (to  be  used  with  some 
caution).  It  contains  the  record  of  the  first  eight  campaigns  of  Sen¬ 
nacherib,  and  the  earlier  building  operations  at  Nineveh — the  Bit- 
kutalli.  It  bears  the  date  691  B.  C.  It  has  been  translated  into 
German  by  Horning,  Das  Sechsseitige  Prisma  des  Sanherib  in  transscribir- 
tem  Grundtext  und  V ebersetzung ,  and  by  Bezold,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii, 
pp.  80,  ff.,  and  into  English  by  Rogers,  Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series, 
vi,  pp.  83-101,  and  part  of  it  (the  Jerusalem  Campaign)  in  improved 
form  in  Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels,  pp.  340-344.  (b)  The  Bellino 

Cylinder,  British  Museum  K.  1680,  a  barrel  cylinder  dated  702  B.  C., 

352 


II — 352 


Six-sided  baked  clay  prism  of  Sennacherib,  king  of 
Assyria  (705-680  B.C.),  and  popularly  known  as  the 
Taylor  Cylinder.  British  Museum,  No.  91032. 

[Photograph  by  W.  A.  Mansell  &  Co.,  London.] 


to  gnbl  tdiT9rfoBiin98  to  mahq  yxto  bsifid  bsbia-xig 
erlt  8b  nvnxnl  yhf;toqoq  bnii  0.89-50T)  BhyaaA 

.28010  .o VL  qmraauM  riaiiha  .rabnilyO  toIybT 

[.nobnoJ  ,.oO  i»  IfeanaM  .A  .W  yd  /[qBTgotorbl] 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB 


353 


themselves  to  be  the  better,  even  though 
they  were  the  weaker,  portion  of  the  empire. 
Had  Sennacherib  gone  at  once  to  Babylonia 
and  taken  the  hands  of  the  god,  he  might 
have  been  proclaimed  shakkanak  of  Babylon, 
as  Sargon  had  been,  and  it  is  altogether  prob¬ 
able  that  he  would  have  had  no  important 
difficulties  with  Babylonia.  He  saw  clearly, 
however,  the  dangers  of  a  dual  capital  and 
the  impossibility  of  mutually  pleasing  two 
great  peoples  so  diverse  in  all  their  ideas  and 
aims.  So  long  as  Babylon  remained  a  great 
city,  and  its  citizens  nourished  their  national 
life  and  kept  burning  their  national  pride,  there 

and  containing  the  account  of  the  first  two  campaigns,  and  of  the  work 
on  the  new  palace  at  Nineveh  thus  far  accomplished.  It  is  published 
in  Layard,  Inscriptions  in  the  Cuneiform  Character,  plates  63,  64.  (c) 

The  Rassam  Cylinder,  British  Museum  80-7-19,  i,  also  barrel  shaped. 
It  is  dated  700  B.  C.,  and  contains  the  campaign  of  701  in  the  west, 
(d)  The  Sennacherib  Prism,  British  Museum  No.  103000,  octagonal, 
14  inches  high,  and  containing  740  lines  of  text,  while  the  Taylor  has 
but  487  lines,  though  each  is  slightly  longer.  It  is  dated  in  694,  and 
is  of  great  importance  because  it  contains  the  accounts  of  two  cam¬ 
paigns  in  698  and  695  omitted  from  the  other  texts.  This  prism  is 
published  for  the  first  time  by  King,  Cuneiform  Texts,  xxvi,  who  also 
translates  portions  of  it.  To  it  we  are  also  indebted  for  important 
topographical  notes  about  Nineveh,  especially  concerning  the  royal 
palace  and  the  city  walls,  (e)  The  Bavian  Stele,  published  III  R.  14, 
translated  into  French  by  Pognon,  If  Inscription  de  Bavian,  Textc, 
traduction  et  commentaire  philologique,  Paris,  1879-80,  and  into  English 
by  Pinches,  Records  of  the  Past,  First  Series,  ix,  pp.  21-28.  (f)  The 

Neby  Yunus  Inscription,  published  I  R.  43,  and  partially  translated 
by  Bezold,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  pp.  118,  119.  See  further,  Winclder, 
Textbuch  zum  Alten  Testament,  p.  47,  and  Ungrad  in  Gressmann,  Alt- 
orientalische  Texte  und  Bilder,  p.  121,  footnote  3.  (g)  Minor  Inscrip¬ 

tions  in  Messerschmidt,  Keilschrifttexte  aus  Assur  I,  Nos.  43-50,  and 
Andrae,  Festungswerke  von  Assur,  Textband,  pp.  176,  177.  (h)  The 

Arabian  Campaign.  Ungnad,  Vorderasiatische  Schriftdenkmaler  der 
kdnigl.  Mus.  zu  Berlin,  i,  p.  73,  f.  Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels,  pp, 
345,  346. 


354  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


would  always  be  arising  opportunities  for  vexa¬ 
tion  against  Assyria,  and  therefore  possibilities 
for  some  shrewd  Babylonian  or  Chaldean  to 
gain  leadership  over  the  popular  clamor  and 
seize  the  throne.  The  maintenance  of  a  dual 
kingdom  was  essentially  an  anomaly.  If  col¬ 
onization  and  deportation  accomplished  so  much 
in  the  north  and  the  west  for  continuity  and 
peace,  why  should  just  the  opposite  plan  be 
continued  in  Babylonia?  Tiglathpileser,  Shal¬ 
maneser,  and  Sargon  had  done  nothing  to 
diminish  the  national  feeling  in  Babylonia,  but 
rather  had  contributed  fuel  to  the  flame. 
Tiglathpileser ’s  visits  to  Babylon  in  order  that 
he  might  be  proclaimed  king  had  fostered 
Babylonian  pride,  in  that  they  made  the  As¬ 
syrian  king  a  suitor  for  honors  at  the  hands 
of  priesthood,  though  he  had  in  reality  won 
his  triumph  by  force  of  arms.  Shalmaneser 
had  done  exactly  the  same  thing.  Sargon 
had  done  even  worse,  for  he  had  accepted  the 
lesser  title  of  shakkanak  in  order  that  he  might 
be  delivered  from  the  onerous  annual  visit 
to  Babylon  and  be  free  to  come  and  go  as  he 
pleased.  Sennacherib  would  do  none  of  these 
things.  He  was  a  loyal  Assyrian  and  no  Baby¬ 
lonian,  and  was  determined  to  break  with  all 
this  past  history,  in  which  his  own  country 
had  the  power,  but  gave  up  its  semblance  and 
its  show.  He  would  possess  that  also,  and 
show  the  world  that  Assyria  was  not  merely 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB 


355 


the  head  of  the  empire,  but  its  absolute  master. 
He  would,  in  other  words,  treat  Babylonia 
as  a  subject  state  and  pay  no  attention  to  its 
royal  ideas,  its  kingly  titles,  and  its  priestly 
authorities.  It  is  possible  that  in  this  decision 
jealousy  was  mixed  up  with  ambition.  Sen¬ 
nacherib  could  not  have  looked  the  empire 
over  without  learning  that  Assyria  was  still 
a  raw  and  uncouth  country,  leaning  upon 
Babylonia  for  every  sign  of  culture.  Perhaps 
he  felt  that  this  position  of  Babylon  itself 
might  make  it  some  day  the  capital  of  the 
entire  empire,  while  Assyria  lost  its  leadership 
altogether.  His  policy  must  prevent  any  such 
possibility  as  that. 

Sennacherib  must  have  formed  his  plans 
and  matured  his  policy  even  before  his  father 
was  dead,  for  it  seems  to  come  into  play  at 
once.  The  first  sign  of  it  was  purely  negative, 
but  it  was  carefully  noted  in  Babylonia,  and 
the  record  of  the  divergent  views  has  come 
down  to  us.  Sennacherib  did  not  go  to  Babylon 
to  be  crowned  or  proclaimed  king  or  shakkanak. 
As  we  now  see  the  case  from  the  vantage 
point  of  later  history  this  was  a  fatal  blunder. 
The  empire  divided  in  opinion  at  once.  The 
so-called  Babylonian  Chronicle,  resting  on  offi¬ 
cial  sources,  sets  down  for  704  and  703  Sen¬ 
nacherib  as  king  of  Babylon.  That  is  to  say, 
Sennacherib,  without  the  carrying  out  of  the 
usual  rites,  without  the  ordinary  concessions 


356  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


to  the  time-honored  regulations  of  the  priest¬ 
hood,  without  any  salve  for  Babylonian  pride, 
called  himself  king  of  Babylon,  and  the  state 
record,  compiled  by  authority,  sets  him  down 
as  king.  But  the  Ptolemaic  Canon,  which 
clearly  goes  back  to  Babylonian  sources,  marks 
the  years  704  and  703  as  “ kingless T1  This 
was  the  real  Babylonian  opinion.  This  man 
Sennacherib  might  collect  his  taxes  and  tributes 
because  he  had  the  armed  forces  wherewith 
to  enforce  his  demands,  but  he  could  not  force 
the  hearts  of  the  people  to  acknowledge  him 
as  the  genuine,  the  legitimate,  king.  In  this, 
the  first  stroke  of  a  new  and  revolutionary 
policy,  Sennacherib  had  made  provision  for  a 
disturbance  which  should  vex  his  life,  if,  in¬ 
deed,  it  did  not  disrupt  his  kingdom — such 
force  have  ancient  custom  amd  solemn  religious 
rites. 

This  state  of  affairs  could  not  continue  long 
— an  Assyrian  king  claiming  to  be  king  in 
Babylon  while  the  Babylonians  denied  that  he 
was  king  at  all.  A  rebellion  broke  out  in 
Babylonia,  and  a  man  of  humble  origin,  called 
in  the  King  List2  son  of  a  slave/  by  name 
Marduk-zakir-shum,  was  proclaimed  king.  Here 
was  again  a  disturbance  brought  on  by  folly, 
and  likely  to  grow  worse  before  it  was  better. 
In  this  condition  of  affairs  the  ever-watchful 

1  See  above,  vol.  i,  p.  514. 

2  See  Pinches,  “The  Babylonian  Kings  of  the  Second  Period,”  Pro¬ 
ceedings  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archceology ,  vi,  col.  iv,  line  13. 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB 


357 


and  certainly  able  Merodach-baladan  saw  his 
opportunity.  Marduk-zakir-shum  had  reigned 
one  month  when  the  Chaldean  appeared,  and 
was  able  to  have  himself  again  set  up  as  king 
(702).  He  now  set  out  to  bring  about  a  con¬ 
dition  of  affairs  which  would  compel  Sennacherib 
to  leave  him  alone  in  the  enjoyment  of  the 
old  honor  and  position.  It  was  Sargon  who 
had  so  long  left  him  in  peace,  while  he  was 
occupied  in  pacifying  the  west.  If  he  could 
now  disturb  the  west  again  and  divert  from 
himself  Sennacherib  and  his  armies,  he  might 
again  be  permitted  to  rule  long  enough  to  fix 
himself  firmly  in  his  position.  This  time  he 
might  hope  to  have  less  difficulty  in  satisfying 
his  Elamite  and  Chaldean  followers.  The  plan 
was  adroit,  and  promised  well.  The  Book  of 
Kings1  narrates  that  Merodach-baladan  sent  an 
embassy  to  Hezekiah  to  congratulate  him  on 
his  recovery  from  a  severe  illness.  Hezekiah 
showed  his  visitors  the  royal  treasures  and 
arsenals,  doubtless  greatly  impressing  them 
with  the  wealth  and  strength  of  Judah.  There 
is  no  hint  of  any  ulterior  purpose  in  the  mind 

1  2  Kings  xx,  12-19.  There  has  been  some  doubt  as  to  the  time  when 
this  embassy  was  sent.  It  has  been  assigned  to  the  first  reign  of  Mero¬ 
dach-baladan  under  Sargon  (so  Lenormant,  Hommel,  Geschichte,  p.  704; 
Winckler,  Die  Keilschrifttexte  Sargon' s,  i,  p.  xxxi,  note  2),  and  also  to 
his  second  reign  (so  Schrader,  Cuneiform  Inscriptions  and  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment ,  ii,  28,  29;  E.  Meyer,  Geschichte  des  Alterthums,  i.  p.  466;  Winckler, 
Geschichte ,  p.  129;  Murdter-Delitzsch,  Geschichte,  2d  ed.,  p.  197;  Mas- 
pero,  The  Passing  of  the  Empires ,  p.  275).  The  fatter  view  seems  to 
me  to  fit  the  Assyrian  situation  better.  So  also  Breasted,  History  of 
Egypt,  p.  55 L 


358  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


of  Merodach-baladan,  but  the  result  shows 
clearly  that  this  embassy  was  really  intended 
to  sow  seeds  of  rebellion.  It  is  most  probable 
that  he  also  sought  to  draw  Egypt  into  some 
rebellious  compact,  for  Sennacherib  later  had 
also  to  fight  that  country.  The  plan  to  divert 
Sennacherib  to  the  west  .failed  because  the 
state  of  affairs  in  the  kingdom  was  very  differ¬ 
ent  from  that  which  had  obtained  in  the  days 
of  Sargon.  Sargon  was  a  usurper,  and  had 
to  make  sure  of  his  borders  and  establish 
himself  upon  the  throne.  On  the  other  hand, 
Sennacherib  inherited  a  kingdom  which  ac¬ 
cepted  his  rule  without  a  murmur,  and  was 
therefore  better  able  to  look  after  Merodach- 
baladan  at  once.  He  made  no  false  step  in 
the  quelling  of  this  rebellion,  though  his  own 
folly  had  been  the  real  cause  of  it.  He  deter¬ 
mined  to  leave  the  Palestinian  states  to  their 
own  pleasure  and  strike  at  the  root  of  the 
disaffection  in  Babylonia. 

Sennacherib  crossed  the  Tigris  and  marched 
in  the  direction  of  Babylon,  meeting  with 
little  opposition  until  he  reached  Kish,  about 
nine  miles  east  of  Babylon,  where  Merodach- 
baladan  had  deployed  his  forces.  Here  was 
fought  the  first  battle,  and  Merodach-baladan 
was  completely  routed  and  forced  to  seek 
safety  in  flight.1  The  city  of  Babylon  was 

1  Taylor  Prism,  col.  i,  lines  19-23,  Rogers,  Records  of  the  Past,  New 
Series,  vi,  p.  84. 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB 


359 


not  prepared  for  a  siege,  and  Sennacherib 
entered  it  without  difficulty.  The  palace  of 
Merodach-baladan  was  plundered  of  everything 
valuable,  but  apparently  Sennacherib  did  not 
disturb  the  possessions  of  the  native  Baby¬ 
lonians.  He  then  marched  into  Chaldea,  ran¬ 
sacking  the  whole  country.  In  one  of  his 
records  of  this  campaign  Sennacherib  declares 
that  he  destroyed  eighty-nine  cities  and  eight 
hundred  and  twenty  villages;1  in  another  he 
gives  seventy-six  cities  and  four  hundred  and 
twenty  villages.2  Whatever  the  correct  figures 
may  be  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  land 
was  fearfully  punished.  Merodach-baladan,  who 
had  hidden  himself  in  Guzuman,  was  not 
captured.  When  this  was  done  Sennacherib 
set  about  the  governmental  reorganization  of 
the  country.  He  had  with  him  a  young  man 
named  Bel-ibni,  a  Babylonian  by  birth,  but 
reared  in  the  royal  palace  of  Assyria.  Him 
Sennacherib  made  king  in  this  year  (702), 
after  Merodach-baladan  had  reigned  but  nine 
months.3  When  Sennacherib  was  ready  to 
return  to  Assyria  he  carried  back  immense 
booty  with  him,  and  besides  the  horses  and 
asses  and  camels  and  sheep  he  took  away 
two  hundred  and  eight  thousand  people.4 

1  K.  1644.  See  Bezold,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  p.  84. 

2  Taylor  Prism,  i,  lines  34,  35. 

3  Alexander  Polyhistor  says  six  months. 

4  The  Taylor  Cylinder,  Annals  of  Sennacherib,  i,  19-62  (I  R.  37). 
Compare  translation  by  Rogers,  Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series,  vi, 

pp.  83,  ff. 


360  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


This  extensive  deportation  must  have  been 
made,  according  to  the  policy  of  Tiglath- 
pileser,  to  achieve  peace  and  prevent  fur¬ 
ther  rebellion.  How  well  even  this  heroic 
treatment  succeeded  with  a  high-strung  people 
like  the  Babylonians  only  later  history  can 
show. 

After  the  end  of  the  Babylonian  campaign 
Sennacherib  marched  into  the  territory  of  the 
Kasshu  and  Yasubigallu,  who  lived  in  the 
Median  mountains  east  of  Babylonia.  They 
were  a  semibarbaric  people,  and  the  campaign 
must  have  been  undertaken  merely  to  make 
the  Assyrian  border  country  safe  from  their 
plundering  raids.  The  invasion  was  success¬ 
ful  in  reducing  the  country,  and  captives  of 
war  were  settled  in  it,  while  the  nomadic 
inhabitants  were  forced  to  settle  down  in  the 
cities.  In  this  country  some  of  the  Babylonians 
whom  Sennacherib  had  carried  off  may  have 
found  their  home.  Thence  into  Ellipi  Sen¬ 
nacherib  continued  his  march.  Ishpabara,  whom 
Sargon  had  made  king,  had  not  paid  his  tribute 
regularly,  and  must  now  be  punished.  Fearing 
the  consequences  of  his  faithlessness,  Ishpabara 
fled,  and  Sennacherib  easily  captured  the  cap¬ 
ital,  Marubishti,  with  the  villages  in  its  en¬ 
virons.  A  part  of  the  country  was  colonized 
and  then  annexed  to  the  province  of  Kharkhar, 
as  Ellipi  had  been  to  that  of  Arrapkha.  After 
the  withdrawal  of  the  Assyrians,  Ishpabara 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB  361 

appears  to  have  regained  some  of  his  lost 
territory.1 

In  701  Sennacherib  was  forced  to  invade 
the  west.  He  gives  us  no  new  reasons  for 
this  invasion,  but  the  occasion  for  it  is  easily 
read  between  the  lines  of  his  records,  and 
deduced  from  the  biblical  narrative.  When 
rebellions  were  afoot  in  Babylonia,  and  for  a 
time  at  least  were  successful,  when  Egypt  was 
eager  to  regain  lost  prestige  in  a  land  where 
she  had  once  been  all-powerful,  when  an  em¬ 
bassy  from  the  indefatigable  Merodach-baladan 
had  come  all  the  way  from  Babylonia  to  win 
sympathy  and  the  help  of  a  diversion  in  the 
west,  it  was  hardly  possible  that  these  small 
states  should  remain  quiet  and  pay  their  an¬ 
nual  tribute  without  a  murmur.  We  do  not 
know  how  much  inclined  Hezekiah  of  Judah 
may  have  been  to  join  in  an  open  rebellion  at 
this  time.  He  had,  however,  taken  up  a  posi¬ 
tion  which  would  make  it  easy  for  him  to  do 
so;  and  the  war  party  with  its  national  enthu¬ 
siasm  and  unthinking  patriotism  was  strong 
at  his  court.  This  policy  was  bitterly  opposed 
by  Isaiah,  the  leader  of  the  cautious-minded 
men,  who  saw  only  disaster  in  any  breach 
with  Assyria  at  this  time.  Isaiah  was  no 
lover  of  Assyria,  but  he  saw  clearly  how  weak 
and  poor  was  the  help  which  the  land  might 
hope  for  from  the  outside.  The  Syrian  states 


1  Taylor  Prism,  i,  63  to  ii,  33,  Rogers,  op.  cit.,  vi,  pp.  86  -88. 


362  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


had  suffered  much  from  their  former  reliance 
on  Egypt,  and  there  was  certainly  no  reason 
to  hope  that  matters  would  be  any  better 
now.  The  wisest  counsel  was  undoubtedly 
that  of  Isaiah.  But,  even  though  Hezekiah 
was  willing  to  take  it,  which  he  certainly 
was  not,  it  would  have  been  almost  impossible 
for  him  to  do  so.  The  whole  land  was  aflame 
with  patriotism,  and  woe  betide  the  man, 
even  a  king,  who  dared  to  oppose  it. 

Indeed  the  king  had  himself  done  much  to 
foster  not  only  this  very  spirit,  now  become 
dangerous,  but  also  to  quicken  a  consciousness 
of  security  which  could  not  fail  to  collapse  in 
the  presence  of  such  armies  as  Assyria  was 
able  to  put  into  the  field.  Hezekiah  had  been 
victorious  over  the  Philistines,1  and  that  prob¬ 
ably  very  early  in  his  reign;  why  should  he  not 
also  conquer  the  Assyrians?  would  be  the 
simple  reasoning  of  those  who  had  not  directly 
experienced  the  Assyrian  advance  in  war.  He 
had  built  an  aqueduct  by  which  an  abundant 
supply  of  flowing  water  was  brought  within 
the  city  walls.  What  that  meant  for  the  city 
is  almost  incalculable  by  occidentals.  Jerusalem 
had  never  had  flowing  water  before  within 
its  walls.  It  could  therefore  easily  be  taken 
by  a  siege  in  the  dry  season.  Hezekiah  had 
supplied  this  primary  need,  and  by  so  doing- 
had  immeasurably  added  to  the  defensibility  of 


1  2  Kings  xviii,  8. 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB 


363 


the  city.  There  is  no  doubt  that  this  was  a 
war  measure,  and  that  it  would  be  so  under¬ 
stood  and  interpreted  by  the  people  is  even 
more  clear.1  How  easy  was  the  task  of  the 
anti-Assyrian  party  with  such  arguments  as 
these — victory  over  the  Philistines,  and  a  new 
aqueduct — to  break  down  the  opposition  led 
by  Isaiah  and  supported  by  his  unpopular 
associates.  All  that  Isaiah  actually  accom¬ 
plished  was  the  postponement  of  the  breach 
with  Assyria;  without  him  it  would  inevitably 
have  come  sooner. 

As  in  Judah,  so  also  in  Egypt  was  the  way 
preparing  for  an  uprising  in  S}^ria.  The  Twenty- 
fifth,  or  Ethiopian  dynasty  was  now  ruling, 
nominally  at  least,  over  the  whole  land  of 
Egypt,  and  Shabaka,  its  first  king,  had  ascended 
the  throne  in  712  or  711.  But  there  is  evidence 
enough  to  show  that  the  Ethiopian  king  could 
hardly  claim  to  be  absolute  master  of  the 
destinies  of  the  Nile  valley.  Sennacherib  in  his 
narrative  of  the  later  campaign  refers  not  to 
the  king  of  Egypt,  but  to  the  kings  of  Egypt, 
and  his  successors  upon  the  Assyrian  throne 
supply  us  with  lists  of  the  names  of  kings 
over  districts  of  Egypt.  All  these  district 
kings  were  striving  for  more  power,  and  the 
Ethiopian  overlord  must  gain  ascendency  over 
them  all  before  he  could  dispose,  as  he  would, 
of  Egypt’s  greatness.  He  could  readily  see 

1  2  Kings  xx,  20.  Compare  2  Chron.  xxxii,  5. 


3G4  HISTORY  OR  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

that  a  movement  outside  of  Egypt,  against 
external  foes,  would  be  certain,  if  successful, 
to  increase  his  prestige  at  home.  The  same 
hopes  would  be  in  the  minds  of  the  district 
kings.  A  policy  like  this  pursued  by  a  dis¬ 
trict  king,  such,  for  example,  as  Sibe,  might 
make  him,  instead  of  the  Ethiopian  overlord, 
the  real  king  of  Egypt.  If  one  of  these  kings 
was  seeking  a  place  in  which  to  gain  advantage 
by  interference,  there  was  none  more  prom¬ 
ising  than  Syria.  Even  a  slight  hope  of  regain¬ 
ing  it  would  readily  unite  all  parties  in  Egypt, 
and  he  would  be  sure  of  his  throne.  He  would 
thus  be  glad  to  encourage  any  patriotic  party 
in  Syria  to  appeal  to  him  for  help,  hoping, 
when  the  accounts  were  reckoned  up,  to  be 
able  to  turn  to  his  own  advantage  whatever 
help  he  might  give  to  the  rebels  against  Assyria. 
Gladly  would  he  listen  to  an  appeal  for  help 
from  Judah.  And  in  spite  of  Isaiah  the  appeal 
was  sent.  An  embassy  from  Hezekiah,  naturally 
laden  with  presents,  went  to  Egypt,1  and  the 
Egyptians  promised  assistance.  More  and  more 
the  patriotic  party  in  Judah  gained  the  ascen¬ 
dency.  The  country  was  ready  for  a  daring 
stroke  against  Assyria.  Hezekiah  became  the 
moving  spirit  of  a  rebellion  which  swept  over 
all  the  Syrian  states.2 

1  See  Isa.  xxx,  1-4,  and  xxxi,  1. 

2  Our  authorities  for  Sennacherib’s  campaign  in  the  west  are  the 
following:  1.  Assyrian,  (a)  I  R.  7,  No.  viii,  I.  Rogers,  Records  of 
the  Past,  New  Series,  vi,  p.  83.  Sennacherib’s  bas-relief,  represent- 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB 


3G5 


The  rebellion  broke  first  in  Ekron.  Here 
the  Assyrian  had  set  up  a  governor  who  re¬ 
mained  faithful  to  his  masters  beyond  the 
Euphrates,  to  the  bitter  end.  The  uprising 
in  his  city  was  general  if  not  universal.  “The 
governors,  chiefs,  and  people  of  Ekron,”  as 
Sennacherib  says,1  cast  Padi  into  iron  chains 
and  then  delivered  him  up  to  Hezekiah2  to  be 
shut  up  in  prison.  This  act  in  itself — and  our 
knowledge  of  it  comes  at  first-hand  from  Sen¬ 
nacherib’s  own  historiographers,  and  not  from 
the  Hebrews — shows  that  Hezekiah  was  re¬ 
garded  as  the  real  head  of  the  insurrection. 
Sennacherib  could  not  brook  such  an  insult 
as  this  to  a  prince  whom  the  Assyrians  had 
set  up,  for  nothing  of  Assyrian  prestige  could 
be  saved  if  this  were  allowed  to  go  unpunished. 
He  resolved  to  proceed  at  once  in  person  at 
the  head  of  his  armies  and  strike  suddenly 
before  the  forces  of  all  Syria  could  unite.  His 
first  point  of  attack  was  the  Phoenician  cities. 
Sennacherib  says  nothing  about  a  siege  of 

ing  his  victory  at  Lachish.  (b)  The  Taylor  Prism,  col.  ii,  line  34-col. 
iii,  line  41.  Rogers,  op.  cit.,  pp.  88-91,  and  Cuneiform  Parallels,  pp. 
340-345.  2.  Hebrew,  (a)  2  Kings  xviii,  13-xix,  37.  (b)  Isa.  xxxvi, 

1-xxxvii,  37.  The  passage  in  Isaiah  is  the  same  as  that  in  Kings, 
with  the  single  great  exception  that  it  does  not  contain  2  Kings  xviii, 
14-16 — a  positive  proof  that  this  passage  is  not  original  in  its  present 
setting.  Stade  has  shown  ( Zeitschrift  fur  die  alttestamentliche  Wissen- 
schaft,  1886,  pp.  172,  ff.)  that  it  consists  of  three  narratives,  the  first 
of  which  is  2  Kings  xviii,  13,  17-37,  xix,  l-9a;  the  second,  2  Kings 
xviii,  14-16;  and  the  third,  2  Kings  xix,  9b-37.  (See  also  Benzinger 
and  Kittel  on  the  passage.)  This  analysis  is  now  generally  accepted. 

1  Taylor  Prism,  ii,  69,  Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels,  p.  342. 

*  Hezekiah,  having  conquered  Philistia,  was  now  regarded  as  a  sort 
of  overlord,  and  hence  was  asked  to  receive  Padi. 


366  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


Tyre  at  this  time,  for  he  was  certainly  not 
prepared  to  attack  a  city  which  could  be 
reached  successfully  only  by  the  sea.  He  was, 
however,  able  to  ravage  its  tributary  cities  on 
the  mainland,  and  so  affect  it  indirectly.  Having 
thus  injured  the  city’s  commerce  and  frightened 
its  defenders,  Sennacherib  turned  against  Sidon. 
Elulaeus  (Luli),  who  was  now  king,  dared  not 
await  the  conqueror’s  approach,  and  fled.  The 
city  surrendered  at  once,  and  Sennacherib 
made  it  the  capital  of  a  new  province.  Tyre 
had  been  engaged  in  setting  up  a  new  con¬ 
federation  of  which  it  should  be  the  head. 
Sennacherib  could  now  forestall  this  by  setting 
up  Ethobal  as  king  in  Sidon  and  giving  him 
Sidon,  Bit-Zitti,  Sarepta  (Sariptu),  Machalliba, 
Ushu,  Ekdippa  (Akzibu),  and  Akko  (now  Acre) 
as  his  kingdom. 

The  very  presence  of  the  Assyrian  monarch, 
engaged  in  his  work  of  making  and  unmaking 
kingdoms,  filled  all  Syria  with  terror.  States 
which  had  been  ready  enough  to  rebel  against 
Assyrian  tribute  were  now  ready  to  surrender 
without  the  faintest  attempt  at  a  fight.  Among 
these  who  had  more  discretion  than  valor 
were  Menahem  (Minchimmu)  of  Samsimuruna, 
the  location  of  which  is  unknown;1  Abdili’ti 
of  Arvad,  Urumilki  of  Byblos,2  Mitinti  of 
Ashdod,  Budu-ilu  of  Beth-Ammon,  Kammusu- 

1  It  is  certainly  not  Samaria,  as  was  once  thought  by  Talbot,  Norris, 
and  George  Smith. 

2  Gu-ub-la-ai,  that  is,  “of  Gebal,”  the  ancient  name  of  Byblos. 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB 


367 


nadab  of  Moab,  and  Malik-rammu  of  Edom.1 
All  these  brought  heavy  and  costly  presents, 
and  so  assured  Sennacherib  of  their  desire  to 
live  peaceably  and  pay  well  their  tribute. 
This  formidable  defection  from  the  ranks  of 
the  rebels  greatly  reduced  their  chances  for 
success,  for  it  left  large  spaces  of  territory 
from  which  neither  supplies  nor  men  could 
be  drawn.  Sennacherib,  however,  had  not  yet 
terrorized  all  Syria,  and  there  were  some  who 
boldly  held  on  their  course  and  prepared  for 
defense.  Of  these  states  Ashkelon  first  de¬ 
manded  severe  treatment  from  Sennacherib. 
Tiglathpileser  had  set  up  Rukipti  as  king  over 
the  people  of  Ashkelon,  but  his  son,  Sharru- 
ludari,  had  been  driven  out  and  a  usurper 
named  Zidqa  was  now  ruling  in  the  city.  His 
only  hope  of  a  continuance  in  power  was  in 
successful  resistance  to  Sennacherib.  The  city 
was,  however,  soon  taken,  and  Zidqa  with  all 
his  family  was  carried  off  to  Assyria,  and 
Sharru-ludari  set  up  as  king.  It  is  somewhat 
surprising  that  this  conquest  did  not  bring 
about  more  desertions  from  the  rebels,  but 
the  remainder  held  fast  and  had  to  be  reduced 
piecemeal.  Even  the  other  cities  which  formed 
part  of  the  little  kingdom  of  Ashkelon  had  to 
be  taken  one  at  a  time;  so  fell  Beth-Dagon, 
Joppa,  Benebarqa,2  and  Azuru. 


1  Taylor  Prism,  ii,  34-57,  Rogers,  op.  cit.,  vi,  pp.  88,  89. 

2  Beni-berak,  Josh,  xix,  45. 


368  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

The  campaign  was  now  swiftly  approaching 
Ekron,  and  Sennacherib  is  probably  reporting 
only  the  actual  fact  when  he  says  that  the 
people  of  Ekron  feared  in  their  hearts.1  Be¬ 
fore  he  had  his  reckoning  with  them  he  must 
first  meet  a  formidable  foe.  Unlike  former 
kings  of  Egypt,  or  of  its  separate  districts, 
the  present  rulers  were  determined  to  send 
some  help  to  the  newly  gained  allies  in  Pales¬ 
tine,  or  Syria.  They  might  well  do  so,  for  it 
was  not  merely  the  possession  of  Syria  which 
was  now  in  the  balance,  but  even  the  autonomy 
of  Egypt  itself.  No  man  could  possibly  tell 
when  the  Assyrians  would  invade  the  land  of 
the  Pharaohs  if  Syria  were  wholly  theirs,  and 
hence  a  safe  base  of  operations  and  supplies. 
As  we  have  said  before,  there  is  every  good 
reason  for  believing  that  this  had  long  ago 
been  contemplated  in  Assyria.  The  forces  of 
the  Egyptians,  advancing  northward,  united 
with  a  contingent  from  Melukhkha,  probably 
not  very  large,  and  then  proceeded  onward, 
intending  doubtless  a  junction  with  the  troops 
of  Hezekiah.  Before  this  could  be  effected 
Sennacherib  halted  the  advance  at  Altaku2  and 
offered  battle.  It  was  a  battle  of  giants,  and, 
though  Sennacherib  boasts  of  the  usual  victory, 
it  must  have  been  achieved  with  great  loss. 
That  the  victory  in  a  measure  was  his  there 

1  Taylor  Prism,  ii,  73. 

2  Eltekeh,  Josh,  xix,  44.  The  exact  location  is  doubtful.  See  G.  A. 
Smith,  Hist.  Gtog.  of  Holy  Land,  p.  236. 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB 


369 


can  be  no  doubt.  He  captured  the  son  of  an 
Egyptian  king  and  the  son  of  a  general  of 
Melukhkha.  The  cities  of  Eltekeh  and  Tim- 
nath  were  then  taken,  and  the  road  was  opened 
to  Ekron.  Ekron  could  offer  no  effectual  re¬ 
sistance,  and  the  city  was  terribly  punished. 
The  chief  men  who  had  driven  Padi  from  the 
throne  were  impaled  on  stakes  about  the  city, 
while  their  unhappy  followers  were  deported. 
The  Assyrian  party  in  the  city  was,  on  the 
other  hand,  peacefully  treated.1  It  was  a  hor¬ 
rible  object  lesson  to  those  who  looked  on. 
Padi,  who  was  still  in  the  hands  of  Hezekiah, 
was  later  restored  to  the  command  of  the  city. 

At  first  thought  it  seems  remarkable  that 
Sennacherib  did  not  follow  up  this  victory 
over  the  Egyptians.  Their  allies  in  Palestine 
were  defeated;  their  detachments  from  Arabia 
were  routed;  they  themselves  were  in  full 
flight.  Much  indeed  might  have  been  gained 
by  a  decisive  castigation  of  troublesome  Egypt. 
But  Sennacherib’s  chief  enemy  in  all  this  cam¬ 
paign  was  Hezekiah,  and  Jerusalem  his  real 
goal.2  Until  the  Judaean  king  was  ruined  and 

1  Taylor  Prism,  iii,  1-7. 

2  “Aber  wenn  nun  .  .  .  Schrader  behauptet,  die  Bedrobung  Jerusalems 
bedeute  nur  eine  nebensachliche  Episode  im  Verlaufe  des  ganzen  Heer- 
zuges,  so  glaube  ich,  dass  ganz  abgesehen  von  den  biblischen  Erziih- 
lungen  man  doch  zu  dem  Urtheil  wird  kommen  miissen,  der  Zug  gegen 
Jerusalem  sei  Endziel  und  Schluss  des  Ganzen.  Denn  die  so  ganz 
besonders  starke  Bestrafung  Hizkias,  die  Verwiistung  von  46  Stadten, 
Abtrennung  grosser  Gebietsteile,  die  Aufzahlung  der  sehr  grossen  Beute, 
welche  uns  hier  in  langer  Reihe  vorgefiihrt  wild,  fuhrcn  zu  dem  Schluss, 
dass  Sanherib  den  Hizkia  als  besonders  gcfahrlichcn  Gegner  angeschen 


370  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


Jerusalem  devastated,  as  Ekron  had  been,  the 
object  of  the  campaign  would  not  be  fulfilled. 

Into  Jerusalem  came  the  news  of  the  Egyptian 
defeat  at  Eltekeh  and  of  the  overwhelming 
of  Ekron,  and  still  Hezekiah  did  not  offer  to 
surrender.  Up  from  the  plains  of  Philistia 
came  the  victorious  Assyrian  army,  and  one 
by  one  the  fortified  cities  of  Judah  fell  before 
it  until  forty-six  had  been  taken.  Their  in¬ 
habitants  were  now  reckoned  as  Assyrian  sub¬ 
jects,  and  according  to  the  historians  of 
Sennacherib  they  numbered  two  hundred  thou¬ 
sand  one  hundred  and  fifty.* 1  These  cities  were 
then  divided  between  Mitinti,  king  of  Ashdod, 
Padi,  king  of  Ekron,  and  Sillibel,  king  of  Gaza 
— a  serious  loss  of  territory  to  Hezekiah.  Thor¬ 
oughly  convinced  now  that  further  resistance 
would  mean  utter  destruction,  Hezekiah  deter¬ 
mined  to  submit  and  secure  such  terms  as 
he  could.  He  sent  an  embassy  to  Sennacherib, 
whose  headquarters  were  established  at  Lachish 
in  the  Shephela.  Sennacherib  demanded  a 
tribute  of  thirty  talents  of  gold  and  eight  hun¬ 
dred  of  silver,  as  the  Assyrian  accounts 
represent,2  or  three  hundred  talents  of  silver, 

und  bestraft  hat.” — Meinhold,  Die  Jesajaerz&hlungen,  Gottingen,  1898, 
p.  96. 

1  Taylor  Prism,  col.  iii,  line  17.  These  inhabitants  were  not  carried 
away  into  captivity.  They  were  marched  out  ( ushesa )  from  their 
cities  and  compelled  to  give  allegiance  to  Assyria.  The  usual  Assyrian 
expression  ( ashlul )  for  taking  away  into  captivity  is  not  used  here. 
See  Meyer,  Die  Entstehung  des  Judenthums,  Halle,  1896,  pp.  108,  109. 

2  Taylor  Prism,  iii,  34,  Rogers,  op.  cit.,  p.  91. 


Limestone  slab  with  relief  depicting  the  siege  of 
Lachish  by  the  troops  of  Sennacherib,  king  of  As¬ 
syria  (704-682  B.  C.). 

[Photograph  by  V.  H.  Kleinmann  &  Co.,  Haarlem.] 


370  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND' ASSYRIA 

Jerusalem  derastated,  as  Ekron  had  been,  the 

object  of  the  campaign  would  not  be  fulfilled. 

Into  Jerusalem  came  the  news  of  the  Egyptian 

defeat  at  Eltekeh  and  of  the  overwhelming 

<  f  E  con,  and  still  Hezeldah  did  not  offer  to 

surrender.  Up  from  the  plains  of  Philistia 

came  the  victorious  Assyrian  army,  and  one 

by  one  the  fortified  cities  of  Judah  fdll  before 

it  until  forty-six  had  been  taken.  Their  in- 

*  \ 

habitants  were  now  reckoned  as  Assyrian  sub¬ 
jects,  and  according  to  the  historians  •  of 

nnacherib  they  numbered  two  hundred  thou.-T 
lo  .ogoia  ad)  gniiqiq^b,  V.ikt  die/  <Jsfe  > 

-a Ai  lo  gfiid  .dnsd'wmiw*  lo  f.qooxt  adt  vd  ifcafofiJ 

.  ,i  m  i'HT  r.hv, 

Padi, 

[.melmaH  ,,ot)  $>  .H  .7  yd  dqmgotod*!] 

oughly  convinced  no  ^  ance 

wtor- 


wouid  u  w 
mined  1  ?  ^ 
he  jo  aid.  H 
whose  her 

tribute  ■  f  ? 
dred  of  si? 
represent,2  o 


terms  as 
'to  Sennacherib, 
wblished  at  Lachish 
mi  wherib  demanded  a 
.dents  of  gold  and  eight  bun¬ 
as  the  Assyrian  accounts 
ree  hundred*  talents  of  silver, 


\md  besfcraft.  Meinhold  Dio  JesajaerzQhlungm,  Gottingen,  1898, 

p.  96. 

1  Taylor  Prism,  ^<»l.  iii,  line  »7.  These  inhabitants  were  not  carried 
away  into  <  apt  city.  1  were  marched  out  (ushe.va)  from  their 
cities  and  compelled  to  g:  '  finance  to  Assyria.  The  usual  Assyrian 

i  T>i‘-Ssion  (mi  l  l)  f«  -wny  into  captivity  if  not  used '•  here. 

. 

•Taylor  Prism,  iii,  3-s  t  •  r  op.  cit.y  p.  91. 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB 


371 


as  the  Hebrew  narrative1  recounts.  The 
securing  of  such  a  sum  was  a  grievous  task, 
and  it  was  accomplished  only  by  stripping 
the  temple  of  ornaments  and  furnishing.  The 
humiliation  of  Hezekiah  was  as  complete  as 
his  impoverishment.  It  was  also  probably  at 
this  time  that  Padi,  king  of  Ekron,  was  deliv¬ 
ered  up  by  Hezekiah,  and  thereupon  resettled 
in  the  rule  over  his  city.2  When  Sennacherib 
had  secured  the  gifts  he  did  not  rest  satisfied, 
but,  feeling  sure  that  he  could  not  be  resisted, 
demanded  the  surrender  of  Jerusalem.  A  part 
of  his  army,  under  the  command  of  a  Rab- 
shakeh,  a  general  officer  of  some  kind,  is  sent, 
with  a  detachment  of  troops  as  escort,  to 
express  his  determination.  This  brought  about 
a  panic  in  the  populace,  and  the  king  himself 
was  in  a  frenzy  of  fear.  Years  later  Sennacherib 
might  well  say  of  Hezekiah:  “I  shut  him  up 
like  a  caged  bird  in  Jerusalem,  his  royal  city.”3 
The  city  was  not  besieged,  but  was  blockaded, 

1  2  Kings  xviii,  14.  Brandis  ( Munzwesen ,  p.  98)  has  attempted  to 
show  that  the  three  hundred  Hebrew  talents  =  eight  hundred  Assyrian, 
and  this  is  now  generally  accepted.  So  also  Lehmann-Haupt,  Israel, 
Seine  Entwickelung  in  Rahmen  der  W eltgeschichte,  p.  121.  The  amount 
of  this  tribute  in  present  money  would  be  about  $5,650,000. 

2  The  surrender  of  Padi  to  the  Assyrians  is  mentioned  in  Sennacherib’s 
Annals  (Taylor  Prism,  iii,  8-10)  before  the  treaty  with  Hezekiah.  The 
reason  for  this  is  that  Sennacherib  is  there  telling  of  the  punishment 
of  Ekron,  and  goes  on  to  show  how  it  was  to  be  governed  in  the  future. 
The  narrative  does  not  follow  strict  chronological  order,  but  this  episode 
is  rounded  out  and  then  the  chronological  scheme  is  again  resumed. 
This  is  the  usual  form  in  Assyrian  narrative.  See  Winckler,  Alttes- 
tamentliche  Untersuchungen,  p.  31. 

3  Taylor  Prism,  col.  iii,  line  20. 


372  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


so  that  all  hope  of  succor  from  outside  was 
cut  off.1  Within  the  walls,  amid  all  the  con¬ 
fusion  and  fear,  preparations  for  a  last  defense 
went  on  vigorously.2  Without  them,  at  the 
“conduit  of  the  upper  pool,  which  is  in  the 
highway  of  the  fuller’s  field,”3  negotiations 
were  carried  on  between  the  Rabshakeh  on 
the  one  side,  and  on  the  other  Eliakim,  palace 
governor;  Shebna,  state  recorder;  and  Joah, 
chancellor. 

Though  both  threatened  and  cajoled, 
Hezekiah  refused  to  give  up  the  city,  and  the 
Rabshakeh  withdrew  his  force  and  joined  the 
main  body  at  Libnah,  whither  Sennacherib 
had  withdrawn  from  Lachish,  which  had  suc¬ 
cumbed  to  superior  force.  It  was  conceived 
to  be  a  place  of  such  importance  that  its  con¬ 
quest  is  celebrated  by  Sennacherib  in  a  mag¬ 
nificent  wall  inscription  with  pictures  in  relief.4 


1  The  statement  of  Sennacherib’s  Annals  (col.  iii,  lines  21,  22)  does 
not  properly  bear  the  construction  that  he  had  laid  siege  to  the  city 
in  a  formal  manner.  His  phrase  is:  “Intrenchments  I  fortified  against 
him,  (and)  whosoever  came  out  of  the  gates  of  the  city  I  turned  back.” 
This  is  not  the  expression  used  elsewhere  for  a  real  investment  of  the 
city.  It  was  a  blockade,  and  the  implication  is  that  the  forces  of  the 
Rabshakeh  were  encamped  around  the  city,  but  at  a  distance,  which 
also  is  supported  by  the  place  at  which  negotiations  were  carried  on,  for 
this  must  have  been  between  the  two  forces  and  not  within  the  Assyrian 
lines.  Compare  2  Kings  xix,  32:  ‘‘Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord  con¬ 
cerning  the  king  of  Assyria,  He  shall  not  come  into  this  city,  nor  shoot 
an  arrow  there,  neither  shall  he  come  before  it  with  shield,  nor  cast 
a  mount  against  it.”  See  on  the  passage  Kittel,  Handkommentar,  p.  289. 

2  Isa.  xxii,  9,  10. 

3  2  Kings  xviii,  17. 

4  Published  I  R.  7,  No.  viii,  I  (Rogers,  op.  cit.,  p.  83).  The  pictures 
are  reproduced  in  Ball,  Light  from  the  East,  pp.  191,  193. 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB 


373 


Shortly  thereafter  he  withdrew  to  Assyria, 
induced  thereto  perhaps  by  the  threatening 
condition  of  affairs  in  Babylonia,  and  richly 
compensated  for  his  disappointments  by  the 
enormous  treasure  secured  from  Hezekiah. 

Sennacherib  had  left  Babylonia  in  the  full 
enjoyment  of  peace,  but  he  had  also  sown 
thoroughly  the  seeds  of  unrest.  Bel-ibni,  one 
of  his  own  creatures,  was  on  the  throne,  but 
however  well  disposed  he  was,  there  was  no 
hope  that  he  might  successfully  resist  the 
distemper  of  the  people.  Their  patriotic  love 
for  Babylon,  their  belief  that  once  a  world 
city  meant  always  a  world  city,  had  been 
grossly  trodden  under  foot  by  the  Assyrian 
king;  their  inborn  religious  feeling  had  been 
outraged  beyond  endurance  by  a  king  who 
paid  not  the  least  attention  to  their  solemn 
rites  of  coronation.  Sennacherib  was  now 
deeply  embroiled  in  the  western  troubles,  and 
the  Babylonians  thoroughly  understood  them, 
for  news  traveled  far  and  fast  in  the  ancient 
Orient.  The  time  was,  to  their  mind,  auspicious 
for  the  reassertion  of  national  ideals.  No 
matter  what  Bel-ibni  may  have  desired,  he 
was  forced  by  resistless  public  sentiment  into 
a  position  hostile  to  Assyria.  Ever  ready  for 
any  chance  at  his  old  enemy,  Merodach-baladan 
of  the  Sea  Lands  joined  in  the  rebellion,  and 
the  Chaldeans,  under  a  native  prince  named 
Mushezib-Marduk,  also  engaged  in  it.  This 


374  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

looked  like  a  promising  rebellion,  though  that 
the  confederates  could  divide  the  land  between 
them  if  there  was  success  might  well  be  doubted. 

The  new  organization  of  affairs  in  Baby¬ 
lonia  went  well  for  a  short  period,  until  the 
appearance  in  700  of  Sennacherib.  At  once 
the  whole  compact  fell  to  pieces.  Bel-ibni 
was  captured  and  sent  ignominiously  to  Assyria, 
whose  training  he  had  dishonored,  along  with 
his  foolish  counselors.  Marduk-ushezib  fled 
toward  the  south,  and  went  into  hiding  in 
the  marshes  at  the  mouths  of  the  rivers.  Mero- 
dach-baladan  embarked  his  gods  and  his  people 
upon  ships,  and  sailing  down  the  Persian  Gulf, 
settled  along  the  eastern  shores  in  the  land 
of  Elam,  whither  Sennacherib  did  not  dare 
to  follow  him.  There  he  soon  after  died.  No 
man  like  him  as  an  opponent  of  Assyria  had 
arisen  since  the  days  of  Ben-Hadad  II  of 
Damascus.  Adroit  enough  to  surrender  always 
at  the  right  time,  ever  full  of  resources  when 
there  was  the  least  hope  of  success,  implacable 
in  his  hostility,  his  removal  from  action  was  a 
great  boon  to  Assyria.  His  name  did  not  die 
with  him,  but  his  descendants,  of  the  same 
stuff  in  their  persistency,  remained  to  plague 
a  later  day  in  Assyrian  history.  The  land  of 
Bit-Yakin  was  next  ravaged  by  Sennacherib  in 
the  vain  attempt  to  root  out  the  elements  of 
discord  and  disaffection.  On  his  return  north¬ 
ward  Sennacherib  had  his  own  son,  Ashur- 


Sennacherib  at  Lachish  (701  B.  C.).  A  relief 
representing  the  king  seated  upon  his  portable 
throne,  which  had  been  set  near  some  vines  and  fig 
trees  outside  the  city.  His  officers  are  reporting  to 
him  the  events  of  the  siege,  and  behind  him  are  the 
representatives  of  the  conquered  city.  At  the  upper 
left  hand  corner  is  a  four-line  cuneiform  inscription 
which  reads: 

“Sennacherib,  king  of  the  world,  king  of  Assyria, 
seated  himself  on  a  throne  and  the  prisoners  of 
Lachish  marched  before  him.” 

[Photograph  by  W.  A.  Mansell  &  Co.,  London.] 


O  v 


374  HISTOin  01  BAB  V  IA)  MA  jus  u  a_  . 

hellion,  though  that 
tn  ai  t  s  could  divide  the  land  between 

Ua/m  \va^  success  might  well  be  doubted, 
•ganization  of  affairs  in  Baby- 
L  went  well  for  a  short  period,  until  the 
nee  in  700  of  Sennacherib.  At  once 

j/>  .M  SOw  iUUhrJ  i.i*  dhaihiifnwb 

'  oM^hocf  ml  010:10  &MB8  inbl  '  odd 
aft  brii  Whtv  bnfoe  lebh  tea  itebdbiuf  ,9noirit 

<  0  iMHttoqe'!  f&iU  aiK  stft  bhfehjo  *i©At 

sflloTB  faiid  hiddod  bci£  adt  to  Bitnbva ndt  mid 

h&m*  ndtefeAu  .yiio  kmatsbm*  a#  doiaa^rkBtMaanga*! 
aoijqriQSui  txi^otiQtma  a/iil-inot  B.ai  Tnnol  lonul  Jlol 

A  'lo  §nbl.  <bhuv/  odi  \o  jguii  Af94^f  ra? .  * 
to  Tg'ianqahq  OiO  bm;  ouo'uft  £•  no ^  lle«faid  boMoy 

d  b  I  /-wm.vI^v/1  [ \Arf<\*rrt rff  rfo r f  f n o,  F 

to  folkw  him. 


Amid  oiolod  bodimmi  doib^d 

.  .•  •  '  i.S 


:;iiA  L.  .7/  V.(l  riqi.-n^o.iofi 


arisen  since  •  tin 

t-v  , _ . _ _  .. 


II  of 

hi  u*  ender  always 
■  •  ;  ;  o  11  u»  resources  when 
h  ; ;  of  success,  implacable 
h  .  ■;  Arm  action  was  a 
•a..  His  name  did  not  die 
descendants,  of  ti  e  same 
♦aoisteney,  remained  to  plague 
.  \  v- Syrian  history.  The 
next  ravaged  by  Sennacherib  in 
[he  vein  atte>n;>t  to  root  out  the  elements  of 
discord  and  i  ion.  On  his  return  north- 


■  • 

with  him, 

. 

r> ;  i  \r.  ,  :  , 

lilt-  X  at  •: 


V. 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB  375 

nadin-shum,  proclaimed  in  Babylon  as  king1 
(700-694  B.  C.).  And  so  began  another  at¬ 
tempt  at  governing  this  difficult  part  of  the 
empire. 

In  the  year  698  military  operations  were 
deemed  necessary  in  Cilicia.  Kirua,  a  native 
prefect  of  Illubru,  situated  in  the  Taurus,  had 
revolted  and  drawn  to  his  support  the  peoples 
of  Irgira  and  Tarsus.  They  seized  the  Cilician 
gates  and  so  cut  off  the  commercial  road  which 
connected  Western  Asia  with  Asia  Minor. 
This  was  a  matter  of  very  serious  import,  and 
Sennacherib,  unable  for  some  reason  to  take 
the  field  in  person,  dispatched  ample  forces 
of  all  arms,  including  bowmen,  lancers,  and 
even  chariots.  The  issue  was  met  “in  the 
midst  of  a  difficult  mountain,’ ’  and  the  As¬ 
syrian  arms  were  victorious.  Illubru  was  re¬ 
taken,  Kirua  was  carried  off  to  Assyria  and 
flayed,  and  Tarsus  was  destroyed.  At  Illubru 
Sennacherib  caused  to  be  set  up  a  stela  with 
his  royal  semblance  upon  it,  and  plainly  counted 
this  a  campaign  of  consequence.  The  people 
whom  Kirua  had  thus  led  to  a  forlorn  hope 
were  Ionians,  and  this  conflict  impressed  the 
imagination  to  so  great  an  extent  that  the 
memory  of  it  was  preserved  by  Berossos,2  who 
gave  an  account  of  it,  and  ascribes  to  Senna¬ 
cherib  the  building  of  the  city  of  Tarsus  after 


1  Taylor  Prism,  iii,  lines  42-65,  Rogers,  op.  cit.,  pp.  91,  92. 

2  Schoene,  Eusebi  chronicorum,  liber  I,  cols.  27,  35. 


376  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


the  manner  of  Babylon.1  The  severe  discipline 
of  Cilicia  sufficed  to  keep  the  province  in 
subjection  for  three  years  only.  In  695  in  the 
district  of  Tabali,  northeast  of  Cilicia,  a  man 
named  Khidi  formed  a  union  against  tribute 
paying  and  seized  Til-garimmu,  making  it  his 
capital.  Sennacherib  dispatched  an  expedition 
against  him.  Til-garimmu  was  besieged  and 
taken  “by  the  heaping  up  of  earth,  the  assault 
of  siege  engines  and  the  attack  of  foot  soldiers. ” 
The  method  was  curiously  interesting.  The 
walls  were  approached  by  the  heaping  of 
earth  against  them  so  as  to  form  an  inclined 
plane  by  which  the  attacking  troops  could 
reach  the  top  of  the  wall,  and  so  drive  the 
defenders  from  it,  and  enable  the  siege  engines 
to  be  rolled  up  and  breach  it.2  The  city  was 
turned  into  mounds  and  heaps  of  ruins  “and 
its  people  deported  to  Assyria.”3 

Again  were  troubles  brewing  in  Babylonia, 
even  while  the  king’s  own  son  maintained  his 
precarious  rule.  The  Chaldeans  were  not  so 
well  led  as  they  had  been,  but  even  in  exile 
they  ceased  not  to  plot  against  the  nation 

1  Sennacherib’s  account  is  in  the  large  prism  (British  Museum  103000) 
col.  iv,  lines  61-91.  See  King’s  notes  upon  it  in  Cuneiform  Texts, 
xxvi,  pp.  9-14,  and  compare  his  paper  Semiacherib  and  the  Ionians, 
Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies,  xxx  (1910),  pp.  327-335. 

2  This  method  was  also  much  used  in  the  later  Neo-Babylonian  or 
Chaldean  period:  “he  [the  Chaldean]  derideth  every  stronghold;  for 
he  heapeth  up  dust  and  taketh  it.”  Hab.  i,  10. 

3  The  account  of  this  campaign  is  found  only  in  British  Museum 
103000,  col.  v,  1-22,  and  its  duplicate  102996.  See  King,  Cuneiform 
Texts,  xxvi. 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB 


377 


which  had  humiliated  them.  A  large  number 
of  Chaldeans  had  left  the  southlands  of  Baby¬ 
lonia  and  settled  on  the  coasts  of  Elam.  Here 
they  were  an  ever-present  menace  to  the  peace 
of  Babylonia.  In  694  Sennacherib  undertook 
a  campaign  for  their  destruction.  It  was 
a  campaign  extraordinary  in  conception  and 
execution.  He  built  boats  on  the  Tigris  and 
manned  them  with  Phoenicians  and  Cyprians, 
who  were  better  used  to  ships  than  the  land- 
loving  Assyrians.1  The  boats  were  then  floated 
down  the  Tigris  to  Upi  (Opis),  and  thence 
conveyed  overland  to  the  Euphrates  by 
camels,  where  they  were  again  launched  and 
went  down  to  the  Persian  Gulf.  A  short 
sail  brought  the  forces  to  the  colonies  which 
Merodach-baladan  had  founded,  where  the 
cities  were  destroyed  and  their  inhabitants 
slain  or  carried  into  captivity.2  Never  before 
had  Sennacherib  made  a  direct  attack  on 
Elam,  and  this  was  not  to  go  by  without  an 
effort  after  revenge.  Khallus,  the  Elamite 
king,  invaded  Babylonia  and  plundered  Sippar. 
Ashur-nadin-shum,  who  had  enough  courage 
to  oppose  him,  was  taken  captive  to  Elam,3 
whence  he  apparently  never  returned.  The 
Elamites  then  crowned  in  Babylonia  a  native 
by  the  name  of  Nergal-ushezib.  This  act  again 
divided  the  land.  The  new  king  held  only 

Baylor  Prism,  iv,  line  26. 

2  Ibid.,  lines  29-33. 

3  Babylonian  Chronicle,  ii,  42,  Keilinschri/t.  Bill.,  ii,  pp.  278,  279. 


378  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


northern  Babylonia,  while  all  the  south  was 
in  Assyrian  hands.  Nergal-ushezib  attempted 
to  gain  control  also  over  the  south,  and  marched 
to  Nippur,  which  he  took  in  693. 1  Shortly 
after  he  met  an  Assyrian  army,  and  a  battle 
was  fought  in  which  he  was  taken  prisoner 
and  carried  to  Assyria.2  In  Elam  an  uprising 
took  place  in  which  Khallus  was  killed,  and  the 
throne  came  to  Kudur-nankhundi.3  These  re¬ 
versals  of  fortune  seemed  to  hand  over  the 
land  of  Babylon  again  to  the  Assyrians,  but 
the  matter  was  by  no  means  settled.  The 
Assyrians  could  not  hope  to  hold  Babylonia  in 
safety  if  the  Elamites  were  not  so  punished 
for  the  late  invasion  that  they  would  never 
dare  the  like  again.  The  change  in  kings  gave 
a  favorable  opportunity,  and  Sennacherib  in¬ 
vaded  the  land.  He  claims  to  have  sacked  and 
burned  thirty-four  cities  and  to  have  seized 
much  treasure.  The  king  was  not  taken  nor 
his  capital  city  besieged — and  this  failure  Sen¬ 
nacherib  ascribes  to  weather  of  unusual  severity 
and  to  great  cold.4  Kudur-nankhundi  lived  only 
three  months  more,  and  was  succeeded  by 
his  younger  brother,  Umman-minanu,  whom 
Sennacherib  considered  a  man  without  judg¬ 
ment  and  intelligence.5 

1  Babylonian  Chronicle,  ii,  42. 

2  Ibid.,  iii,  4,  5. 

3  Ibid.,  9.  In  the  Babylonian  Chronicle  the  name  is  abbreviated 
into  Kudur. 

4  Taylor  Prism,  iv,  43-80. 

6  Ibid.,  v,  line  3,  Rogers,  op.  cit.,  p.  96. 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB 


379 


While  these  events  were  happening  in  Elam, 
and  Sennacherib  was  tied  down  to  his  efforts 
there,  another  Chaldean  seized  the  reins  of 
power  in  Babylonia.  Mushezib-Marduk  was 
made  king  in  Babylon  in  693.  It  is  one  of 
the  curious  changes  in  history  that  he  was 
supported  by  the  native  Babylonians.  It  was 
but  a  short  time  since  the  Babylonian  hatred 
of  Chaldeans  was  so  strong  that  an  Assyrian 
king  who  was  able  to  drive  them  from  the 
country  was  hailed  as  a  deliverer.  Now  the 
Babylonians  were  filled  with  hatred  and  dread 
of  the  Assyrians,  and  made  common  cause 
with  the  Chaldeans  against  them.  The  Baby¬ 
lonians  and  Chaldeans  then  gained  as  another 
ally  the  Elamites,  by  giving  to  Urnman-minanu 
the  treasures  of  the  ancient  temple  of  E-sagila 
as  a  bribe.  Political  necessities  had  surely 
made  strange  bedfellows  when  the  Elamites, 
who  so  recently  had  been  invaders  and  plun¬ 
derers  in  Babylonia,  were  now  chosen  friends 
to  strengthen  a  Chaldean  upon  a  Babylonian 
throne.  With  the  Elamites  were  found  as 
allies  peoples  of  many  places  which  had  been 
organized  as  Assyrian  provinces  but  a  short 
time  before.  Among  these  were  Parsua,  Ellipi, 
and  the  Puqudu,  the  Gambuli,  and,  most 
interesting  of  all,  Samunu,  the  son  of  Mero- 
dach-baladan,  who  had  revenge  in  his  heart 
beyond  a  doubt,  and  was  glad  of  an  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  meet  his  father’s  enemy.  The  allies 


380  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

came  down  into  Babylonia,  and  Sennacherib’s 
historiographer  waxed  eloquent  as  he  thought 
of  that  great  array.  They  were  “like  a  great 
swarm  of  locusts.’ n  “The  dust  of  their  feet 
was  like  a  storm  by  which  the  wide  heavens 
are  covered  with  thick  clouds.”1 2  In  691  Sen¬ 
nacherib  met  the  combined  armies  at  Khalule.3 
The  description  of  the  battle  as  the  Annals 
have  preserved  it  is  one  of  the  most  thrilling 
in  all  Assyrian  literature.4  Words  of  blood 
and  fire  are  heaped  one  upon  the  other  to  set 
forth  the  overwhelming  might  of  the  great 
king’s  opponents  and  the  awful  butchery  which 
they  suffered.  But  the  very  protestations  of 
such  complete  victory  awaken  skepticism,  which 
becomes  conviction  when  we  survey  the  con- 
elusion  of  the  whole  conflict.  Immediately 
after  the  battle  Sennacherib  withdrew  to  As¬ 
syria.  He  made  no  attempt  to  pursue  the 
forces  which  he  is  said  to  have  routed,  neither 
did  he  turn  to  Babylon  to  drive  the  usurper 
from  the  throne.  If  he  really  did  gain  the 
victory,5  it  must  have  been  with  tremendous 
losses  which  could  not  be  promptly  repaired. 

1  Taylor  Prism,  v,  43. 

2  Ibid.,  45-47. 

3  Billerbeck  ( Geographische  Untersuchungen ,  p.  11,  note  1;  Susa, 
p.  90)  locates  Khalule  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Diyala,  perhaps  on  the 
site  where  Hebheb  now  stands. 

4  See  Haupt,  “The  Battle  of  Halule,”  Andover  Review ,  1887,  pp.  542,  IT. 

s  The  Babylonian  Chronicle  (col.  iii,  10-18)  claims  the  victory  for 

Elam  in  these  words:  “Menanu  took  his  seat  on  the  throne  in  Elam. 
In  an  unknown  year  he  collected  the  forces  of  Elam  and  of  Babylonia, 
offered  battle  to  the  Assyrians  in  Khalule  and  conquered  the  Assyrians.” 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB  381 

In  689  Sennacherib  again  invaded  Babylonia 
and  came  up  to  the  city  itself.  The  Baby¬ 
lonians  had  now  no  Elamite  allies,  and  the 
city  was  soon  taken.  Thereupon  ensued  one 
of  the  wildest  scenes  of  human  folly  in  all 
history.  The  city  was  treated  exactly  as  the 
Assyrian  kings  had  been  accustomed  to  treat 
insignificant  villages  which  had  joined  in  re¬ 
bellion.  It  was  plundered,  its  inhabitants 
driven  from  their  homes  or  deported,  its  walls 
broken  down.  The  torch  was  then  applied, 
and  over  the  plain  rolled  the  smoke  of  con¬ 
suming  temples  and  palaces,  the  fruit  of  cen¬ 
turies  of  high  civilization.  All  that  the  art 
of  man  had  up  to  that  time  devised  of  beauty 
and  of  glory,  of  majesty  and  of  massiveness, 
lay  in  one  great  smoldering  ruin.  Over  this 
the  waters  of  the  Euphrates  were  diverted  that 
the  site  of  antiquity’s  greatest  city  might  be 
turned  into  a  pestilential  swamp.  Marduk, 
the  great  god  of  the  city,  was  carried  away 
and  set  up  in  the  city  of  Asshur,  that  no  future 
settlers  might  be  able  to  secure  the  protection 
of  the  deity  who  had  raised  the  city  to  emi¬ 
nence.  Marduk-ushezib  was  carried  a  prisoner 
to  Assyria.1 

It  was  undoubtedly  the  hope  and  belief  of 
Sennacherib  that  he  had  finally  settled  the 
Babylonian  question,  which  had  so  long  bur- 

1  Bavian  Inscription,  lines  43-50,  Bezold,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii, 

pp.  116-119. 


382  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  ANT)  ASSYRIA 

dened  him  and  former  kings  of  Assyria.  There 
would  now,  in  his  opinion,  be  no  further  trouble 
about  the  crowning  of  kings  in  Babylon  and 
the  taking  of  the  hands  of  Marduk,  for  the 
city  was  a  swamp  and  Marduk  an  exile.  There 
would  be  no  more  glorification  of  the  city  at 
the  expense  of  Nineveh,  which  was  now,  by 
a  process  of  elimination,  assuredly  the  chief 
city  of  western  Asia.  Bub  in  all  this  Sennacherib 
reasoned  not  as  a  wise  man.  He  had  indeed 
blotted  out  the  city,  but  the  site  hallowed  by 
custom  and  venerated  for  centuries  remained. 
He  had  slain  or  driven  into  exile  its  citizens, 
but  in  the  hearts  of  the  survivors  there  burned 
still  the  old  patriotism,  the  old  pride  of  citizen¬ 
ship  in  a  world  city.  He  had  humbled  the 
Babylonians  indeed,  but  what  of  the  Chaldeans 
who  had  already  produced  a  Merodach-baladan 
and  might  produce  another  like  him,  who  would 
seek  revenge  for  the  punishment  of  his  race  and 
its  allies  in  Babylonia?  From  a  purely  com¬ 
mercial  point  of  view  the  destruction  had  been 
great  folly.  The  plundering  of  the  great  city 
before  its  burning  had  undoubtedly  produced 
immense  treasure  to  carry  away  into  Assyria, 
but  there  would  have  been  a  great  annual 
income  of  tribute,  which  was  now  cut  off;  and 
a  vast  loss  by  the  fire,  which  blotted  out  ware¬ 
houses  and  extensive  stores  as  well  as  temples 
and  palaces.  This  historic  crime  would  later 
be  avenged  in  full  measure.  In  any  estimation 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB 


383 


of  the  character  of  the  Assyrian  people  the 
destruction  of  Babylon  must  be  set  down  b}^ 
the  side  of  the  raids  and  the  murders  of  Ashur- 
nazirpal.  It  is  a  sad  episode  in  human  history 
which  gave  over  to  savages  in  thought  and  in 
action  the  leadership  of  the  Semitic  race,  and 
took  it  away  from  the  Hebrews  and  Aramaeans 
and  the  culture-loving  Babylonians. 

For  eight  long  and  weary  years  the  only 
record  of  the  Babylonian  Chronicle  and  the 
Ptolemaic  Canon  is,  “There  was  no  king  in 
Babylon. ”  The  babble  of  many  tongues  of 
diverse  peoples  who  had  garnered  knowledge, 
carved  beautiful  statues,  experimented  in  divers 
forms  of  government,  sang  hymns  of  praise, 
and  uttered  plaints  of  penitence  was  hushed, 
and  in  its  place  was  the  great  silence  of  the 
desert,  which  a  ruthless  destroyer  had  made. 

At  some  time  between  688  and  682  Sen¬ 
nacherib  again  went  westward  into  Arabia. 
Sargon  had  there  met  with  extraordinary  suc¬ 
cess.  But  the  results  had  been  very  short¬ 
lived.  The  Bedouin  inhabitants  were  able  to 
pay  tribute,  and  would  do  so  for  a  time  if  there 
was  fear  of  punishment,  but  they  were  so 
continually  moving  about  from  place  to  place 
with  their  flocks  and  herds  that  it  was  difficult 
to  follow  them  and  keep  them  in  dread.  It 
was  one  thing  to  punish  a  people  who  had 
houses  and  cities,  it  was  another  thing  to 
discipline  a  people  whose  black  tents  of  camel’s 


384  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


hair  were  quickly  folded  and  their  possessors 
swept  silently  away  over  pathless  deserts  be¬ 
neath  a  blazing  and  relentless  sun.  Senna¬ 
cherib’s  long  absence  had  blotted  out  the 
memory  of  the  past  among  the  Arabians,  and 
they  were  now  rather  under  Egyptian  than 
Assyrian  influence.  To  restore  the  Assyrian 
position  was  the  object  of  an  expedition  known 
to  us  by  a  reference  in  the  inscriptions  of 
Sennacherib’s  son  and  successor  and  also  from 
a  most  fragmentary  text  of  Sennacherib  himself.1 
Adumu,  a  sort  of  settlement,  probably  the 
Dumatha  of  Ptolemy,  was  taken  and  the  gods 
carried  away  to  Assyria.2  More  than  this 
could  hardly  have  been  accomplished  among  a 
population  such  as  this.  Though  we  have  no 
mention  of  it,  it  is  probable  that  some  booty 
was  secured,  and  the  Assyrian  prestige  would 
be  increased  by  the  taking  away  of  the  gods. 

While  he  was  engaged  in  Arabia  a  rumor 
reached  him  that  Tirhaka  (Taharka),  king  of 
Egypt,  was  advancing  against  him.  He  was 
a  son  of  Piankhi,  by  a  Nubian  woman,  and 
bore  in  his  face,  as  portrait  statues  have  re¬ 
vealed  it,  clear  marks  of  his  negroid  origin. 
He  had  become  king  about  688  B.  C.,  and 
was  no  mean  antagonist.  The  position  in 

1  Scheil,  Orientalistische  Liter atur-Zeitung,  1904,  cols.  69,  70.  Ungrad, 
V order asiatische  Schriftdenkmaler  der  Konigl.  Museen  zu  Berlin,  i,  p. 
73,  ff.  Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels,  pp.  345,  346. 

2  Esarhaddon,  Prism  (A  &  C),  col.  ii,  55-58,  Abel,  Keilinschrift. 
Bibl.,  ii,  pp.  130,  131.  Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels,  p.  354. 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB 


385 


which  Sennacherib  was  now  placed  was  some¬ 
what  disturbing.  He  had  indeed  inflicted  a 
defeat  upon  the  Arabians,  but  that  was  but 
temporary,  as  he  doubtless  knew.  If  the  forces 
of  Tirhaka  were  large  and  the  Assyrians  should 
meet  with  reverses  the  line  of  retreat  was  un¬ 
protected  and  full  of  dangers.  The  Jews  had 
had  time  to  recover  and  if  he  retreated  along 
the  Mediterranean  seaboard  might  fall  on  his 
flanks  with  disastrous  effect.  He,  therefore, 
sent  again  an  embassy  to  Hezekiah  to  demand 
the  surrender  of  Jerusalem,  armed  with  many 
threats  and  high  sounding  words.  At  this 
time  Isaiah  supported  the  king  of  Judah,  and 
counseled  courage,  assuring  the  king  that 
Sennacherib  would  not  be  able  to  attack  Jeru¬ 
salem.1  So  indeed  it  fell  out.  Sennacherib 
turned  to  meet  Tirhaka,  and  while  in  camp 
somewhere  in  the  neighborhood  of  Pelusium,2 
long  famous  as  a  plague  spot,3 * * * * 8  pestilence  broke 

1  This  second  attempt  upon  Jerusalem  is  recounted  in  2  Kings  xix, 
9,  ff.  See  above,  p.  364,  note  2.  For  a  discussion  of  the  question  of 
a  second  attempt  on  Jerusalem  see  Rogers,  Sennacherib  and  Judah  in 
Studien  ....  Julius  W ellhausen  gewidmet,  herausgegeben  von  Karl 
Marti  (Giessen,  1914),  pp.  317-328. 

2  Pelusium  is  given  as  the  place  of  the  catastrophe  by  Herodotus 

(ii,  141,  see  further  below),  and  this  is  supported  by  Hieronymus  ( Corn - 

mentaria  in  Isaiam,  lib.  xi,  cap.  xxxvii,  Patrologice,  Latinoe,  tomus  xxiv,  pp. 

398,  399) :  “Pugnasse  autem  Sennacherib  regem  Assyriorum  contra  iEgyp- 

tios  et  obsedisse  Pelusium  jamque  extructis  aggeribus  urbi  capiendae,  ven- 
isse  Taracham  regem  .Kthiopum  in  auxilium,  et  una  nocte  juxta  Jeru¬ 
salem  centum  octaginta  quinque  millia  exercitus  Assyrii  pestilentia 

corruisse  narrat  Herodotus,  et  Plenissime  Berosus,  Chaldaicse  scriptor 
historise,  quorum  fides  de  proprus  libris  petenda  est.”  There  appears 
to  be  good  reason  for  holding  that  this  statement  of  Hieronymus  comes 
from  Berossos,  and  is  therefore,  in  origin,  independent  of  Herodotus. 

8  See  G.  A.  Smith,  Historical  Geography  of  the  Holy  Land,  pp.  157-159. 


386  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


out  in  his  army,  and  a  disaster  far  more  dan¬ 
gerous  than  the  sword  to  armies  of  all  ages 
fell  upon  him. 

All  hopes  of  invading  Egypt  must  be  aban¬ 
doned,  and  Sennacherib  led  homeward  only  a 
miserable  fragment  of  an  army  which  had 
hitherto  proved  almost  invincible.  The  joy 
of  that  hour  to  all  the  west  may  scarcely  even 
be  imagined.  To  the  Hebrews  it  meant  nothing 
less  than  God’s  intervention  to  save  the  rem¬ 
nant  of  a  kingdom  once  so  glorious.1  To 
Tirhaqa  it  gave  some  claim  to  have  conquered 
the  Assyrians,  and  as  a  victor  over  Khatte, 
Arados,  and  Ashur  he  is  celebrated  in  one  of 
his  own  inscriptions.2  The  tradition  of  that 
wonderful  deliverance  lived  on  in  Egypt,  and 
was  told  to  Herodotus3  by  his  cicerone  in  the 
temple  of  Ptah,  at  Memphis.  As  he  repro¬ 
duces  the  story,  field  mice  gnawed  the  thongs 
of  the  bows  and  devoured  the  quivers  of  the 
army  of  Sennacherib,  “king  of  the  Arabians 
and  Assyrians,”  so  that  “a  priest  of  Vulcan, 
called  Sethos,”  readily  had  a  victory  over 
them.  As  thus  narrated  the  story  contains 
much  unhistorical  material,  though  told  with 
fire  and  force,  but  it  surely  has  a  basis  in  his¬ 
toric  fact,  and  refers  doubtless  to  the  same 
event  as  the  Hebrew  writer  has  described. 

Though  successful  in  all  the  great  cam- 

1  2  Kings  xix,  32-35. 

2  Mariette,  Karnak,  pi.  45a,  pp.  66,  67. 

3  Herodotus,  ii,  141.  See  below.  Appendix  B. 


THE  REIGN  OE  SENNACHERIB 


387 


paigns  down  the  seacoast  from  Sidon  to  Ash- 
kelon  and  up  the  slopes  of  the  hill  country 
to  within  fifteen  miles  of  Jerusalem/  Sennacherib 
had,  nevertheless,  failed  in  the  main  object 
of  his  expeditions  into  Western  Asia.  Jeru¬ 
salem  still  stood,  and  but  for  pestilence  it 
would  have  been  a  smoking  ruin,  as  Ekron. 
Hezekiah  still  reigned,  and  that  with  increased 
prestige,  and  but  for  pestilence  he  would  be 
a  captive  in  Nineveh,  as  was  Zidka,  king  of 
Ashkelon.  Ethiopia  was  left  free  to  continue 
its  peaceful  assimilation  of  Egypt,  and  but 
for  the  pestilence  Assyrian  governors  would  be 
ruling  its  fertile  valleys  as  even  now  they  held 
sway  in  Ashdod.  Sennacherib’s  failure  in  the 
west  justified  in  every  particular  the  foresight 
and  statesmanship  of  Isaiah,  and  the  echo 
of  the  prophet’s  words  would  resound  when 
the  empty  boasts  of  the  defeated  king  were 
known  only  to  quiet  students.  For  several 
years  longer  did  Sennacherib  possess  the  power 
of  Assyria,  but  he  never  invaded  Palestine  again. 

It  was  the  last  act  of  Sennacherib  in  war. 
Shortly  after  his  return  home,  on  the  twentieth 
day  of  the  month  Tebet,  in  the  year  681,  he 
was  murdered  in  a  temple  by  the  hands  of 
his  own  sons,  [Nergalj-sharezer  and  Adarmalik.1 2 

1  Lachish  is  the  modern  Tel-el-Hesy,  and  Libnah  must  be  sought  in 
the  immediate  neighborhood.  According  to  Eusebius  it  belonged  at 
a  later  time  to  the  district  of  Eleutheropolis  (modern  Beit  Jibrin). 

2  2  Kings  xix,  36,  37 ;  Babylonian  Chronicle,  iii,  34,  where  only  one 
son  is  mentioned  as  the  assasoin. 


388  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


Like  many  another  assassination,  west  and 
east,  the  crime  was  due  to  jealousy  of  another 
son  and  desire  to  secure  the  succession  to  the 
throne.  So  ended  a  reign  little  worthy  of  the 
one  which  had  preceded  it.  Sennacherib’s  in¬ 
scriptions  indeed  boast  loudly  of  great  victories, 
but  there  seems  but  little  foundation  for  most 
of  them.  He  added  nothing  to  what  his  father 
had  won  and  held.  His  hand  was  a  hand  of 
iron  and  blood,  and  not  of  real  creative  power. 
No  great  policy  of  administration  was  devised 
or  begun  by  him.  That  he  was  Sargon’s  son 
had  won  him  position,  that  he  had  brute  force 
in  certain  measure  had  held  it  for  him.  The 
empire  had  been  maintained  in  its  integrity, 
though  the  fairest  portion  of  it  had  been  changed 
into  ruin  and  waste  in  the  doing  of  it. 

The  great  act  of  peace  of  Sennacherib’s 
reign  was  the  extension,  the  rebuilding  and 
the  adornment  of  Nineveh.  He  had  inherited 
from  his  father,  Sargon,  the  city  Dur-Sharrukin 
as  the  capital  of  the  realm.  It  was  an  artificial 
growth,  ill  situated  alike  for  industry,  com¬ 
merce  or  defense,  and  Sennacherib  wisely  for¬ 
sook  it.  For  the  new  capital  he  chose  the 
city  of  Nineveh,  a  small  site  upon  the  Ti¬ 
gris,  as  old  as  the  period  of  Hammurapi  and 
the  early  kings  of  Assyria.  It  was  well 
situated  on  the  Tigris,  was  watered  by  the 
small  river  Choser,  which  might  easily  be  used 
to  fill  a  defensive  moat,  and  some  of  the 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB  389 

great  roads  from  the  far  east  already  passed 
through  it. 

The  circuit  of  the  old  city  was  but  nine 
thousand  three  hundred  cubits,  which  Sen¬ 
nacherib  now  increased  to  twenty-one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  fifteen.  It  had  no  inner 
and  no  outer  wall,  but  must  have  had  some 
sort  of  defensive  fortification,  though  it  was 
so  insignificant  that  the  new  builder  did  not 
think  it  worth  the  while  to  describe  it.  He 
can  only  record  that  none  of  “the  former 
kings  .  .  .  had  turned  his  mind  or  directed  his 
attention  to  widen  the  city’s  dwelling  place, 
to  build  a  wall,  to  straighten  the  streets,  to 
dig  a  canal  and  plant  gardens.”1  The  new 
work  was  executed  by  forced  labor  drawn 
from  the  Mannseans,  the  far  distant  peoples 
of  Philistia,  Phoenicia,  and  Cilicia,  and  was 
indeed  prodigious  in  extent.  His  first  con¬ 
cern  was  to  tear  away  the  ancient  palace 
and  to  build  a  larger  and  more  magnificent 
upon  a  ground  plan  of  440  by  700  cubits. 
Here  rose  a  structure  upon  a  lofty  platform, 
whose  roof  was  supported  upon  great  cedar 
beams,  “whose  scent  is  pleasant,”  and  whose 
interior  was  adorned  with  alabaster,  “which 
in  the  time  of  the  kings  my  fathers  was  es¬ 
teemed  precious  for  the  hilt  of  a  sword,”  but 
was  now  used  in  great  slabs  for  wainscoting 
state  apartments.  Within  also  were  apart- 


1  British  Museum  No.  103000,  col.  v,  lines  34-42. 


390  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


merits  rich  in  gold,  silver,  copper  and  lapis 
lazuli,  with  other  precious  stones  in  lavish 
profusion.  To  supply  it  abundantly  with  water 
he  says:  “I  fashioned  levers  of  bronze  and 
buckets  of  bronze  .  .  .  and  great  beams  and 
wooden  frame-works  over  the  well  shafts  I 
erected” — in  this  doubtless  introducing  to  the 
Tigris  the  well  known  shaduf  of  the  Nile. 
Well  might  he  call  this  new  palace,  Ekallu 
shanina  la  ishu,  “the  palace  beyond  compare.” 

To  protect  the  new  city  and  its  palace  he 
began  the  construction  of  walls  undreamt  before 
in  size  and  strength  for  the  city  of  Nineveh. 
He  built  first  an  inner  wall,  laying  its  founda¬ 
tions  upon  dressed  stones,  and  making  it 
forty  bricks,  that  is  forty  cubits,  in  thickness. 
When  it  stood  completed,  massive  and  shining, 
he  gave  it  the  Sumerian  name  Bad-imgalbi- 
galukurra-shushu,  which  he  translates  into  As¬ 
syrian,  which  we  may  turn  into  the  English 
words:  “The  wall  whose  splendor  overthrows 
the  enemy.”  Beyond  this  again  he  placed 
the  outer  wall,  set  upon  massive  stones  cast 
down  below  water  level,  to  make  it  practically 
impossible  to  undermine,  and  this  also  bore 
an  uneuphonious  Sumerian  name  Bad-garneru- 
khulukhkha,  “the  wall  that  terrifies  the  enemy.” 
The  wall  was  pierced  by  fifteen  gates,  seven 
facing  the  rising  sun  in  the  southeast,  three 
its  setting  in  the  west,  and  five  the  north  star. 
There  was  no  gate  in  the  southern  wall,  which 


THE  REIGN  OF  SENNACHERIB  391 

was  short,  not  more  than  a  thousand  yards 
in  length.  Each  of  these  gates  bore  a  name 
which  testified  to  its  chief  use,  thus,  the  north¬ 
ernmost  gate  is  called,  “That  brings  the  produce 
of  the  highlands/'  while  the  chief  river  gate 
bore  the  name:  “That  brings  the  tribute  of 
the  peoples/'  for  before  it  lay  the  quay  where 
the  boats  from  up  and  down  the  river  were 
wont  to  unlade  their  burdens.  Before  these 
gates  stood  colossal  bulls,  some  of  which  have 
come  away  to  stand  silent  and  grim  in  modern 
European  museums,  but  one  remained  in  its 
original  position  even  to  our  own  days,  until 
ignorant  natives  broke  it  up  for  lime.1 

Into  the  city  thus  adorned  and  strengthened 
the  river  Choser  was  not  able  to  bring  water 
enough  for  its  people  or  its  gardens,  and  to 
supply  this  insistent  and  ever  growing  need 
Sennacherib's  engineers  went  back  into  the 
mountains  above  the  small  towns  of  Dur- 
Ishtar,  Shibaniba,  and  Suli  to  search  for  in¬ 
creased  supplies.  Sennacherib  went  himself  in 
person  to  inspect  their  projects  and  approve 
them.  There  they  found  springs  which  were 
diverted  into  a  basin,  and  thence  by  an  aque¬ 
duct  into  the  Choser  to  be  conveyed  to  the  city. 

Above  and  below  the  city  he  planted  gar¬ 
dens,  bringing  into  them  fruits,  herbs  and 
vines  from  Chaldsea,  and  so  skillfully  acclima¬ 
tizing  them  that  he  is  able  to  claim  that  their 


1  See  King,  Cuneiform  Texts,  xxvi,  p.  20,  note  2. 


392  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


“fruitfulness  increased,  more  than  in  their 
own  country.”  Among  these  he  enumerates 
“trees  that  bear  wool”  or  “hair,”1  and  later 
in  the  same  account2  says:  “The  trees  that 
bore  wool  (or  hair)  they  clipped,  and  shredded 
(or  carded)  it  for  garments.”  This  was  prob¬ 
ably  one  of  the  numerous  species  of  palm, 
and  not  cotton,  as  some  have  supposed.3 

This  is  really  a  splendid  record  in  productive 
as  well  as  in  unproductive  works  of  peace, 
and  the  king  had  just  cause  to  be  proud  of 
it,  and  to  cause  fitting  record  to  be  made  of  it. 

1  Cuneiform  Texts,  xxvi,  British  Museum  103000,  col.  vii,  line  56. 

2  Ibid.,  col.  viii,  line  64. 

3  Johns  ( Ancient  Assyria,  p.  133)  calls  it  cotton  and  refers  to  the 
description  in  Herodotus  iii,  106,  who  is,  however,  referring  to  the 
plant  in  India.  Handcock  ( Mesopotamian  Archaeology,  p.  346)  also 
calls  it  cotton.  There  is,  however,  no  evidence  that  cotton  could  then 
be  grown  in  Assyria.  The  forms  most  likely  would  be  Gossypium 
obtusifolium  or  G.  Nanking,  but  what  evidence  is  there  for  their  culti¬ 
vation  even  in  Chaldsea?  See  Watt,  The  Wild  and  Cultivated  Cotton 
Plants  of  the  World.  London,  1907. 


CHAPTER  IX 


THE  REIGN  OF  ESARHADDON 

We  do  not  know  the  exact  circumstances 
which  led  to  the  assassination  of  Sennacherib , 
but  we  shall  not  be  far  astray,  in  all  prob¬ 
ability,  if  we  ascribe  it  to  jealousy  on  the  part 
of  his  sons.  While  he  yet  lived  Sennacherib 
had  made  his  son,  Esarhaddon  (Ashur-akh- 
iddin),  a  sort  of  regent  over  Babylonia.  He 
had  also  by  decree  made  him  the  legal  heir 
to  the  throne,  though  he  was  almost  certainly 
not  the  eldest  son,  and  had  changed  his  name 
to  the  high-sounding  appellation  Ashur-etil- 
ukin-apla  (Ashur  the  hero  has  established  a 
son).  The  other  sons  were  Ashur-nadin-shum, 
who  had  been  king  of  Babylon  and  had  been 
carried  off  to  Elam;  Ardi-Belit  and  Ashur- 
munik.  The  latter  two  were  probably  the 
parricides,  whose  names  the  Hebrews  corrupted 
into  Adrammelech  and  Sharezer. 

During  his  residence  in  Babylonia  in  these 
early  years  of  his  life  Esarhaddon  (680-668) 1 

1  The  chief  authorities  for  the  reign  of  Esarhaddon  are  the  following: 
(a)  The  Cylinders  A,  B,  C,  published  I  R.  45-47,  and  III  R.  15,  16, 
and  Abel-Winckler,  Keilschrifttexte,  25,  26,  translated  into  English  by 
R.  F.  Harper,  Cylinder  A  of  the  Esarhaddon  Inscriptions,  transliterated 
and  translated,  with  Textual  Notes,  from  the  Original  Copy  in  the 
British  Museum,  republished  from  Hebraica,  1887,  1888;  and  into 


394  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


was  smitten  with  a  great  love  for  the  ancient 
land  with  all  its  honored  customs.  His  whole 
life  shows  plainly  how  deeply  he  was  influenced 
by  the  glory  of  Babylon’s  past,  and  how  eager 
he  was  to  see  undone  the  ruin  which  his  father 
had  wrought.  As  soon  as  the  news  of  his 
father’s  death  reached  his  ears  he  caused  him¬ 
self  to  be  proclaimed  as  shakkanak  of  Babylon. 
In  this  he  was  going  back  to  the  goodly  example 
of  his  grandfather  Sargon.  Sennacherib  had 
ceased  altogether  to  wear  a  Babylonian  title. 
Babylonia  was  to  him  not  a  separate  land 
united  with  his  own,  but  a  subject  territory 
inhabited  by  slaves  whom  he  despised.  Esar- 
haddon  did  not  even  take  the  name  of  king, 
which  in  Babylonian  eyes  would  have  been 
unlawful  without  taking  the  hands  of  Marduk, 
now  exiled  to  Assyria.  Immediately  after  his 
proclamation  in  Babylonia  Esarhaddon  has¬ 
tened  to  Nineveh,  where  the  rebellion  collapsed 
at  once,  and  he  was  received  as  the  legitimate 
king.  According  to  the  Babylonian  Chronicle 
it  had  lasted  only  a  month  and  a  half — from 
the  twentieth  day  of  Tebet  to  the  second  day 

German  by  Ludwig  Abel  and  Hugo  Winckler,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii, 
pp.  124-151.  (b)  The  Black  Stone ,  published  I  R.  49,  50,  and  trans¬ 

lated  into  German  by  Winckler,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  pp.  120-125. 
(c)  The  Stele  of  Zenjirli,  published  by  von  Luschan,  Ausgrabungen  in 
Sendschirli,  i,  pp.  11-29  and  plates  i-iv,  and  translated  by  Schrader, 
ibid.,  pp.  29-43.  (d)  Prayers  to  the  Sun  God,  published  and  translated 

into  German  by  J.  A.  Knudtzon,  Assyrische  Gebete  an  den  Sonnen  Gott, 
i,  ii,  pp.  72 — 264.  The  chief  inscriptions  are  transliterated  and  trans¬ 
lated  in  Budge,  The  History  of  Esarhaddon,  London,  1880.  This  now 
needs  revision. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ESARHADDON  395 

of  Adar.1  The  biblical  story  represents  the 
two  murderers  as  fleeing  to  Armenia,  and  there 
is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  this  was  the  case.2 
Esarhaddon’s  inscriptions  say  that  he  left  Nine¬ 
veh  in  the  month  of  Shabat;  and  this  was 
probably  in  pursuit  of  his  brothers.3  Pie  fought 
a  battle  with  the  rebels  and  their  followers  at 
Khanigalbat,  near  Melid,  and  readily  overcame 
them.4  They  had  probably  been  hoping  for 
some  assistance  from  Armenia,  and  now  ac¬ 
cepted  it.  The  campaign  had  lasted  only 
eight  months,  and  in  the  month  of  Kislev,  680, 
Esarhaddon  was  crowned  king  of  Assyria. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  follow  closely  the  order 
of  events  in  the  reign  which  was  now  begun. 
Unlike  Sargon  or  Sennacherib,  Esarhaddon  has 
left  us  scarcely  a  fragment  in  which  the  chron¬ 
ological  order  of  events  is  followed.  He  was 
more  concerned  in  setting  forth  the  deeds 
themselves  than  the  order  and  relation  of 
them— such  at  least  must  be  our  judgment 
unless  at  some  time  a  text  of  his  in  true  annal¬ 
istic  style  should  be  found. 

In  the  very  first  year  of  his  reign  (680) 
Esarhaddon  gave  clear  indications  of  his  re¬ 
versal  of  his  father’s  policy.5  Babylon  had 

1  Babylonian  Chronicle,  iii,  36,  37. 

2  2  Kings  xix,  37. 

3  Cylinder,  col.  i,  lines  1-26,  Winckler,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  pp. 
140-143. 

4  Ibid.,  lines  18-21. 

6  Meissner  and  Rost,  Die  Bauinschriften  Asarhaddon's,  Beitrdge  zur 
Assyriologie,  iii,  pp.  189-362,  with  plates. 


396  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


been  destroyed;  he  would  rebuild  it.  No 
Assyrian  king  before  him  had  ever  set  himself 
so  great  a  task.  He  did  not  live  to  see  it  brought 
to  the  final  and  glorious  consummation  which 
he  had  planned,  but  he  did  see  and  rejoice 
in  a  large  part  of  the  work.  With  much  reli¬ 
gious  solemnity,  with  the  anointing  of  oil  and 
the  pouring  out  of  wine,  was  the  foundation 
laying  begun.  From  the  swamps  which  Sen¬ 
nacherib  had  wantonly  made  slowly  began  to 
rise  the  renewed  temple  of  E-sagila,  the  temple 
of  the  great  gods,  while  around  it  and  the 
newly  growing  city  the  king  erected  from  the 
foundations  upward  the  great  walls  of  Imgur- 
Bel  and  Nimitti-Bel.  All  these,  as  the  king 
boasts,  were  enlarged  and  beautified  beyond 
that  which  they  had  been  in  their  former  glory. 
Slowly  through  the  reign  along  with  the  wars 
which  must  now  be  told  went  on  these  works 
of  peace  and  utility,  to  find  their  entire  com¬ 
pletion  in  the  reign  of  Esarhaddon’s  like- 
minded  son. 

The  first  work  of  war  to  which  Esarhaddon 
must  direct  his  energies  was  a  new  castigation 
of  the  Chaldeans.  While  he  was  busy  in  se¬ 
curing  his  throne  a  fresh  outbreak  had  occurred 
in  the  old  district  of  the  Sea  Lands.  Nabu- 
zir-napishti-lishir,  a  son  of  Merodach-baladan, 
had  gained  some  of  his  family’s  power  in  Bit- 
Yakin,  and  with  this  as  a  base  of  operations 
had  possessed  himself  of  the  country  as  far 


THE  REIGN  OF  ESARHADDON  397 

north  as  Ur.  When  Esarhaddon  dispatched  an 
army  against  him  he  fled  to  Elam,  whither 
his  father  before  him  had  more  than  once  gone 
for  refuge.  There  was  now,  however,  a  new 
regime  in  Elam,  and  the  king,  Khumban- 
Khaldash  II,  seized  him  and  slew  him.  His 
brother,  Na’id  Marduk,  fled  to  Assyria  and 
delivered  himself  up  to  Esarhaddon,  who,  with 
a  mercy  that  honors  his  heart  and  his  judgment, 
sent  him  back  to  Bit-Yakin  to  rule  the  country 
under  Assyrian  overlordship.1  This  sudden 
desertion  on  the  part  of  Elam  of  its  traditional 
friendship  for  Merodach-baladan  and  the  Chal¬ 
deans  in  general  is  very  difficult  to  understand. 
Up  to  this  time  the  Elamites  had  always  aided 
every  movement  of  the  Chaldeans  against  the 
Assyrians.  There  happened  also  a  little  later, 
in  674,  another  strange  manifestation  of  a  new 
policy  among  these  same  Elamites.  While 
Esarhaddon  was  elsewhere  engaged  the  Elam¬ 
ites  surged  down  into  Babylonia,  and,  murder¬ 
ing  and  plundering  as  they  went,  reached  as 
far  as  the  city  of  Sippar.  The  Babylonian 
Chronicle  records  this  raid,2  but  does  not  utter 
a  word  concerning  any  retaliation  on  the  part 
of  the  Assyrians. 

While  Esarhaddon  was  carrying  on  the  re¬ 
building  of  Babylon,  and  the  population  was 
returning  which  had  been  scattered,  he  found 

1  Babylonian  Chronicle,  iii,  39-42;  Cylinders  A  and  C,  ii,  lines  32-41; 
Cylinder  B,  ii,  1-26. 

2  Babylonian  Chronicle,  iv,  9,  10. 


398  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


occasion  for  a  small  passage  at  arms  with  the 
Chaldean  tribe  of  Bit-Dakkuri,  which  had  gained 
sudden  wealth  through  the  destruction  wrought 
by  Sennacherib.  When  the  Babylonians  had 
been  driven  away  by  Sennacherib  from  the 
territory  about  Babylon  and  Borsippa  these 
Chaldeans  had  promptly  taken  possession.  As 
the  selfsame  people  were  now  returning  whom 
Sennacherib  had  thus  dispossessed,  Esarhaddon 
determined  to  drive  out  the  settlers.  He  de¬ 
posed  their  king,  Shamash-ibni,  and  set  over 
them  Nabu-usallim,  a  son  of  a  certain  Balasu 
mentioned  by  Tiglathpileser  IV.1  When  they 
had  been  dislodged  the  lands  were  restored  to 
their  former  owners.  At  about  the  same  time 
Esarhaddon  undertook  to  bring  into  subjection 
the  tribe  of  Gambuli,  perhaps  a  mixed  race 
of  Aramaeans  who  were  settled  in  the  border 
country  between  Elam  and  Babylonia  near  the 
mouth  of  the  Tigris.2  They  had  given  aid 
to  Khumban-Khaldash  in  his  raid  in  674,  and 
must  now  be  humbled.  Their  prince,  Bel- 
iqisha,  did  not  dare  a  battle,3  and  so  surrendered 
and  gave  pledge  to  hold  his  fortress,  Shapi-Bel, 
as  a  sort  of  outpost  against  Elamite  invasions; 


1  Cylinders  A  and  C,  ii,  42-54,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  128-131;  Cylinder 
B,  iii,  19-27. 

2  On  the  location  of  the  Gambuli  see  further  Lenormant,  Die  Anfange 
der  Kultur  ii,  p.  175;  Delitzsch,  Wo  lag  das  Parodies?  pp.  240-241.  The 
tribe  name  appears  in  the  form  Gonbola  (Jaqut  s.  v.  Ganbola),  see 
de  Goeje,  Zeitschrift  der  Deutschen  Morgenlandischen  Gesellschaft,  xxxix, 
p.  9,  f.,  and  compare  Schiffer,  Die  Aramder,  Index,  s.  v. 

3  Cylinders  A  and  C,  iii,  53 -iv,  7. 


the  REJ.'N  OF  ESAHHADDON" 


ms  th  5  strengthened  by  the  Assyrians  for 
^  purpose.  Fsarhaddon  was  too  prudent 

eo  lor  it.  F  h  it  m-Khaldash  II  died  in 
■ 

.  a  she  rent  nurici  dexirM  the  Assyrian^. 

Me  appears  to  have  u  every  effort  to  main- 

iMei  peace  arid  friom  be  weti  lie  two 

-O8o)  •  to  lo  BfeiB  athoiCI 

mtoff  sth.  nl  won  hm  phirmH  1b  hmm\  <(D  AI  .800 
tey  dliiononi  fisfi^xA  tasgiBf  silt,  hi,  i I  jm/eaifM 
Gbrt  baa  .tilgiarf  Ui  k-vr)teu[  01  .£  i>ai  i ; ;^oa-c. flxm  /ooaib 
8  §pM  orb  lo  lao;il  ai  bau  9/qdA  .dibiw  ni  cvotom 
aid  ta  hq,G qtbqg  lo  alodar^  ioxjdmmi  b  oxe  bz$d 
.fbfpgj  oilt  lo  Biiviiit  s'nii  sill  tool 

dfefftpM  -A  -  A  ’{d  b9i[f£qu<  rlq-mgOvlodHj 
ftolutely  unable  to  conquer  Tyre,  chit  [muha<a 
ii  bad  the  sea  on  the  western  side,  forming  i 
defense  which  the  Assyrian  could  not  burn 
nor  pull  down,  and  of  which  he  was  probably 
v  ell  afraid,  as  a  landsman  from  the  east  might 

• 

Km  ended  in  a  calamity  for  which  his  super- 

<  -  -  .  Furthermore,  the  only  effort  at  sei 

H*  *  new  govemmeni  and  of  making  a  center 
•  yrian  influence  had  no  abiding  •  < 

1  :.d  planned  to  set  up  Sidon  as  a  i:\  j  if 

!  ■  '  o<]  '  :a(  M  r 

•  veral  ei;  <os  Mi<  h  w  r<  be  c  j 


Diorite  Stela  of  Esarhaddon,  king  of  Assyria  (680- 
668  B.  C.),  found  at  Sinjirli,  and  now  in  the  Berlin 
Museum.  It  is  the  largest  Assyrian  monolith  yet 
discovered,  measuring  3.46  meters  in  height  and  1.35 
meters  in  width.  Above  and  in  front  of  the  king’s 
head  are  a  number  of  symbols  of  gods,  and  at  his 
feet  are  King  Tirhaka  of  Egypt,  the  small  figure, 
and  King  Baal  of  Tyre,  the  large  bearded  figure. 

[Photograph  supplied  by  W.  A.  Mansell  &  Co., 
London.] 


TITE  REIGN  OE  ESARH ADDON 


390 


it  was  then  strengthened  by  the  Assyrians  for 
this  purpose.  Esarhaddon  was  too  prudent 
to  attack  Elam;  and  there  was  shortly  less 
need  for  it.  Khumban-Khaldash  II  died  in 
the  same  year,  and  his  successor,  Urtaku,  was 
of  very  different  mind  as  regards  the  Assyrians. 
He  appears  to  have  used  every  effort  to  main¬ 
tain  peace  and  friendship  between  the  two 
peoples.  As  an  evidence  of  this  temper  of 
mind  stands  his  action  of  673  in  sending  back 
to  Agade  the  gods  who  at  some  previous  time 
had  been  carried  away  by  the  Elamites. 

All  these  operations  of  war  were  child’s 
play  compared  with  the  drama  in  the  west, 
in  which  Esarhaddon  played  the  chief  role. 
We  have  already  seen  that  Sennacherib  had 
signally  failed  in  Syria.  He  had  been  ab¬ 
solutely  unable  to  conquer  Tyre,  chiefly  because 
it  had  the  sea  on  the  western  side,  forming  a 
defense  which  the  Assyrian  could  not  burn 
nor  pull  down,  and  of  which  he  was  probably 
well  afraid,  as  a  landsman  from  the  east  might 
well  be.  His  efforts  in  Judah,  we  have  also 
seen,  ended  in  a  calamity  for  which  his  super¬ 
stition  or  faith  could  find  only  disquieting 
causes.  Furthermore,  the  only  effort  at  setting 
up  a  new  government  and  of  making  a  center 
for  Assyrian  influence  had  no  abiding  power. 
He  had  planned  to  set  up  Sidon  as  a  rival  of 
Tyre,  and  to  gather  about  it  in  an  artificial 
manner  several  cities  which  were  better  adapted 


400  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


to  be  rivals  than  friends.  His  rearrangement 
of  the  city  dominion  had  no  element  of  stability 
in  it,  and  soon  dissolved.  Ethobal,  whom  he 
had  made  king,  was  probably  loyal  enough, 
and  his  personal  influence  maintained  the  status 
quo ,  for  it  was  in  the  end  a  personal  rather  than 
a  national  plan.  As  soon  as  he  was  dead  and 
his  son,  Abd-milkot,  reigned  in  his  place  the 
people  of  Sidon  quietly  dropped  the  Assyrian 
allegiance  and  went  on  with  their  dispatching 
of  ships  on  the  Mediterranean  and  with  the 
piling  up  of  treasure,  none  of  which  was  paid 
over  to  Assyria  as  tribute.  Here,  then,  in  the 
Phoenician  territory  were  entirely  independent 
states,  Tyre  and  Sidon,  each  with  its  own 
territory.  We  are  clearly  instructed  concern¬ 
ing  the  territory  of  Sidon,  and,  though  Sen¬ 
nacherib  had  stripped  Tyre  of  her  possessions, 
there  is  reason  to  believe  that  some  of  them 
had  been  regained.  The  wealth  alone  of  these 
two  states  might  well  tempt  a  king  who  was 
spending  upon  new  and  old  building  operations 
such  regal  sums.  Former  kings  had  secured 
vast  sums  for  the  noninterference  with  Phoeni¬ 
cian  commerce;  he  might  certainly  hope  to  gain 
at  least  this  boon,  not  to  be  despised,  and  he 
might  also  really  conquer  Phoenicia  and  make 
a  loyal  province  of  it. 

With  such  hopes  and  dreams  Esarhaddon 
led  his  first  westward  campaign.  The  way  had 
been  well  prepared  by  the  Assyrian  conquerors 


THE  REIGN  OE  ESARHADDON 


401 


who  had  devastated  before  him,  and  none 
would  view  the  onset  of  his  troops  with  equa¬ 
nimity.  Before  he  could  reach  the  sea  a  re¬ 
bellion  was  genuinely  on  foot.  Abd-milkot  had 
found  an  ally  in  Sanduarri,  king  of  Kundu1 
and  Sizu,2  two  cities,  the  latter  located  in  a 
mountainous,  almost  impassable,  country  in 
northern  Cilicia.  Sidon  had  the  protection  of 
the  sea,  while  Kundu  and  Sizu  had  the  wild 
and  trackless  mountains  about  them.  The 
Assyrians  had  often  before  crept  among  the 
mountains  and  attacked  enemies  hidden  like 
birds  among  the  clefts,  as  the  Assyrian  annalist 
loves  to  portray  them.  But  their  success  by 
sea  had  been  inconsiderable.  The  new  con¬ 
federation  seemed  to  have  elements  of  strength 
beyond  many  which  had  preceded  it.  On  the 
approach  of  the  Assyrians  the  courage  of 
Abd-milkot  forsook  him  and  he  fled  to  sea. 
Esarhaddon  besieged  Sidon,  and  the  city  held 
out  well — we  do  not  know  exactly  how  long 
— but  the  campaign  against  the  two  rebels 
lasted  three  years.  It  is  certainly  highly 
probable  that  the  greater  part  of  this  long 
period  was  devoted  to  the  maritime  city  rather 
than  to  the  mountain  hamlets.  When  Sidon 
fell  the  city  was  devoted  to  destruction.  The 
walls  which  had  been  a  defense  for  ages  were 
tumbled  into  the  sea;  the  houses  in  which 


1  Kundu  is  Kuinda  (Strabo,  xiv,  v,  8  10),  located  on  the  Gulf  of  Antioch, 

2  Sizu  is  Sis,  in  the  Cilician  mountains. 


402  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


wealthy  merchants  had  lived  were  torn  from 
their  foundations  and  utterly  ruined.  The 
whole  city  was  leveled  to  the  plain  and  blotted 
out  of  existence.1  All  this  is  after  the  models 
of  ancient  days,  and  shows  to  what  a  pitch 
of  wrath  Esarhaddon  had  been  wrought  by 
the  long  and  tedious  siege.  But  at  once  he 
turns  from  this  custom  and  exemplifies  the 
other  and  better  side.  Upon  the  same  site 
another  city  is  built  and  named  Kar-Asshur- 
akh-iddin  (Esarhaddon’s-burg),  that  in  it  the 
old  commerce  might  live  again.  The  new  city 
thus  built  was  peopled  by  inhabitants  of  the 
mountains  conquered  in  war,  and  also  and 
more  reasonably  by  others  drawn  from  the 
coasts  of  the  Persian  Gulf.  Abd-milkot  was 
captured,  perhaps  in  Cyprus,  and  beheaded. 
Kundu  and  Sizu  were  also  taken,  and  the  un¬ 
fortunate  Sanduarri  was  treated  in  the  same  way. 

When  Esarhaddon  returned  from  the  cam¬ 
paign  he  brought  with  him  substantial  evidences 
of  his  victory.  Kundu  and  Sizu  had  probably 
enriched  him  but  little,  but  with  Sidon  the 
case  was  entirely  different.  Here  was  a  com¬ 
mercial  city  through  which  had  passed  a  goodly 
share  of  the  commerce  between  east  and  west. 
As  through  Gaza  passed  the  trade  of  Arabia 
to  the  western  nations  now  coveting  the  luxuries 
and  refinements  of  the  east,  so  through  Sidon, 

1  Cylinders  A  and  C,  col.  i,  lines  10-54;  Cylinder  B,  col.  i,  lines  27-30; 
Kcilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  pp.  124-127,  144,  145. 


THE  REIGN  OE  ESAEHADDON  403 

and  especially  through  Tyre,  passed  all  that 
luxurious  Asia  had  to  contribute  to  the  sybarites 
who  lived  in  Greece  and  Italy.  These  things 
could  not  pass  year  by  year  through  Sidon 
without  leaving  a  share  of  the  choicest  of  them 
in  the  hands  of  those  who  trafficked.  Esar- 
haddon  enumerates  in  one  bald  list  the  treasure 
which  he  carried  away.  It  was  of  gold,  silver, 
precious  stones,  ivory,  costly  woods,  tapestries, 
and  dress  stuffs.  The  color  and  the  richness 
of  the  east  were  in  this  mass  of  wealth.  He 
had  not  reckoned  too  highly  upon  the  gains 
of  his  conquest,  even  if  three  years  had  fled 
away  before  it  was  taken.  To  these  were  added 
the  cattle,  the  sheep,  and  the  asses  which  were 
driven  away  to  render  service  hereafter  in 
Assyria.  The  end  of  this  campaign  is  a  record 
of  return  to  the  most  wretched  barbarism  of 
Assyria’s  darkest  days.  When  he  came  up  to 
his  city  gates  Esarhaddon  made  a  triumphal 
entry  to  the  sound  of  loud  music.  In  his  train 
marched  his  captives,  and  among  them  were 
the  chief  men  of  Sidon,  and  bound  round 
their  necks  was  the  ghastly  head  of  Abd- 
milkot,  while  the  principal  men  of  Kundu 
and  Sizu  bore  in  like  manner  the  head  of  San- 
duarri.  It  is  a  strange  sight,  this  entry  into 
Nineveh,  when  it  is  remembered  that  the  king 
who  made  it  was  Esarhaddon,  who  had  been 
merciful  to  a  son  of  Merodach-baladan  and 
had  restored  to  the  Babylonians  the  lands 


404  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


which  his  father  had  wasted.  The  natural 
Assyrian  temper  had  revealed  itself  in  this 
latest  of  Assyrian  monarchs. 

The  attack  on  Tyre  probably  began  while 
Sidon  was  still  in  a  state  of  siege.  It  was  an 
entirely  different  problem,  and  much  more 
difficult.  Tyre  was  better  defended  by  the 
sea  than  Sidon.  It  was  larger,  richer,  more 
determined.  There  is  little  doubt  that  if  the 
Tyrians  had  believed  that  the  payment  of  a 
heavy  gift,  or  even  the  promise  to  give  a  large 
annual  tribute,  would  have  freed  them  from 
all  further  Assyrian  disturbance  of  trade,  they 
would  have  gladly  met  either  or  both  condi¬ 
tions.  They  had  done  so  before.  But  there 
was  a  determination  about  Esarhaddon’s  actions 
that  could  hardly  be  satisfied  with  anything 
short  of  absolute  control.  The  people  of  Tyre 
wanted  to  save  some  sort  of  autonomy,  in  order 
to  the  greater  freedom  of  their  commerce,  and 
the  only  hope  for  this  now  was  to  fight  and 
not  to  pay  for  it.  Esarhaddon  began  his  siege 
in  earnest.  He  walled  in  the  city  entirely 
upon  its  landward  side,  and  began  a  weari¬ 
some  effort  to  conquer  it  by  famine.  But  of 
one  entrance  to  their  city,  and  that  the  most 
important,  he  could  not  rob  the  Tyrians. 
The  sea  remained  open,  and  by  the  sea  might 
readily  enter  all  that  Tyre  needed  for  the  life 
of  its  citizens.  He  could  deprive  the  city  of 
its  commerce  by  land,  and  that  naturally 


THE  REIGN  OF  ESARHADDON 


405 


must  soon  destroy  its  commerce  by  sea,  but 
if  the  Tyrians  had  the  heart  to  hold  out,  they 
certainly  could  not  be  starved  into  submission. 
Ba’al  was  now  king  of  Tyre  and  he  was  clearly 
of  different  stuff  from  his  less  courageous  pred¬ 
ecessors.  Year  by  year  the  siege  dragged  on, 
while  other  and  greater  efforts  occupied  the 
attention  of  Esarhaddon,  and  in  the  end  there 
was  no  result.  The  siege  had  to  be  lifted,  and 
Esarhaddon  must  confess  defeat.  It  is  true 
that  upon  one  of  his  largest  and  most  im¬ 
pressive  monuments  he  pictures  Ba’al  of  Tyre 
kneeling  before  his  august  majesty,  who  holds 
him  with  a  ring  through  his  lips.1  On  the 
inscription,  however,  there  is  not  one  word 
about  the  fall  of  Tyre,  nor  elsewhere  in  any 
of  Esarhaddon’s  records  is  there  any  claim 
that  Tyre  had  been  taken.  We  are  forced 
to  the  conclusion  that  Esarhaddon  is  here 
glorying  without  justification,  and  that  Ba’al 
of  Tyre  during  his  entire  reign  maintained  his 
independence.  The  failure  to  take  Tyre  was 
a  loss,  in  that  great  treasure  would  undoubtedly 
have  been  secured,  but  in  no  way  was  the 
continued  existence  of  the  city  a  menace  to 
Assyria  or  an  interference  with  the  progress 
of  Assyrian  power  anywhere  in  the  west.  There 
was  no  danger  of  any  attack  by  Tyre  upon  the 
Assyrian  flank  if  Esarhaddon  should  decide 

1  The  Stole  of  Zinjirli.  Sec  von  Luschan,  Ausgrabungen  von  Send- 
schirli.  Berlin,  1893. 


406  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYBIA 


to  move  southward  with  his  forces.  Tyre 
would  go  on  with  her  commerce  and  leave 
the  rest  of  mankind  to  fight  its  own  battles. 

Esarhaddon  had  administered  a  salutary  les¬ 
son  to  Sidon  and  its  ally;  he  would  now  press 
on  to  discourage  any  further  alliances  or  con¬ 
federations  in  Palestine  against  himself  and 
his  rule.  Again  and  again  the  oft-recurring 
rebellions  in  Palestine  had  been  brought  about 
by  Egyptian  agents  who  stirred  up  the  small 
states  and  hoped  to  gain  power  when  Assyria 
had  been  driven  off.  No  Assyrian  king  had 
hitherto  done  more  than  snuff  out  the  little 
flame  of  patriotism  and  punish  the  offenders. 
None  had  been  so  bold  as  to  execute1  a  move 
against  Egypt  herself,  prime  cause  of  all  the 
trouble.  It  is  proof  of  the  power  of  an  ancient 
name  that  this  had  not  been  done,  for  oppor¬ 
tunities  there  had  certainly  been  in  plenty. 
Egypt  had  been  so  weak  that  she  would  prob¬ 
ably  have  fallen  an  easy  prey  to  armies  such 
as  Assyria  had  long  had  in  the  field.  But 
the  Assyrians  had  in  their  thought  the  Egypt 
of  Thotmosis  III  and  Rameses  II,  and  did 
not  rightly  estimate  the  Egypt  of  their  own 
day.  Esarhaddon,  however,  had  learned  other¬ 
wise  in  some  way,  and  now  laid  careful  and 
wise  plans  for  the  overthrow  of  Egypt.  The 
Assyrians  had  broken  down  the  great  culture- 

1  Sennacherib  had  certainly  planned  to  invade  Egypt.  See  above, 
pp.  368,  369,  and  compare,  “I  have  digged  and  drunk  water,  and  with 
the  sole  of  my  feet  will  I  dry  up  all  the  rivers  of  Egypt”  (Isa.  xxxvii,  25). 


THE  REIGN  OF  ESARHADDON  407 

loving  race  of  the  Euphrates  and  had  scattered 
its  treasures;  they  would  now  proceed  to  do 
in  like  manner  unto  the  great  people  who  had 
conserved  literature  and  art  and  science  during 
the  march  of  the  centuries  and  had  survived 
the  wreck  which  had  come  to  others  less  for¬ 
tunate.  The  freebooters  of  Asia,  who  had 
sacked  and  burned  and  made  howling  wastes 
where  once  had  been  beautiful  cities,  must 
seek  a  wider  field  and  enter  Africa. 

In  674  Esarhaddon  makes  his  first  attack 
upon  Tirhaqa,  the  Ethiopian  king  of  Egypt. 
The  campaign  was  absolutely  without  tangible 
results.  The  Assyrian  army,  indeed,  reached 
the  Egyptian  border,  but  did  not  cross  it. 
The  way  was  stubbornly  contested,  and  Esar¬ 
haddon  at  length  withdrew  temporarily  with¬ 
out  abandoning  his  designs.  In  670  he  again 
moved  forward,1  and  probably  with  greatly 
increased  forces.  He  was  soon  over  the  border 
upon  this  campaign,  and  at  the  first  battle 
at  Iskhupri  gained  a  decisive  victory  over 
the  Egyptians.  Two  more  battles  followed, 
and  in  these  also  was  he  victorious.  After  a 
march  of  fifteen  days  from  Iskhupri  he  appeared 
before  the  walls  of  Memphis2  and  laid  siege 
to  an  ancient  and  magnificent  city.  Memphis 
was  unprepared,  and  soon  fell  into  his  hands. 

1  Esarhaddon  had  previously  consulted  the  oracle  of  the  sun  god 
and  had  received  a  favorable  answer.  See  Knudtzon,  Assyrische 
Gebete,  ii,  p.  177. 

2  Stele  of  Zinjirli,  lines  39,  40. 


408  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


The  family  of  Tirhaqa  was  taken,  but  the 
Pharaoh  himself  made  good  his  escape  into 
Nubia,  paralyzed  with  fear  and  hopeless  of 
the  very  idea  of  resistance.  Memphis  was 
plundered  and  destroyed.  Esarhaddon  had 
tasted  the  joys  of  plunder  and  the  satisfaction 
of  revenge  at  Sidon,  and  was  glad  to  drink 
them  again  to  the  full.  The  fall  of  Memphis 
filled  the  whole  land  with  dismay.  Such  an 
event  had  probably  never  seemed  to  the  proud 
people  a  possibility.  There  were  no  further 
resources  in  the  country,  the  king  had  fled 
and  left  all,  and  only  surrender  was  possible. 
As  far  as  the  confines  of  Nubia  the  country 
surrendered  to  the  Assyrians.  In  two  brief 
campaigns,  with  apparently  little  loss,  an  As¬ 
syrian  army  had  undone  the  work  of  centuries 
and  humbled  in  the  dust  the  world’s  proudest 
people.  What  was  lost  to  the  world  in  the 
destruction  of  Memphis  can  never  be  known. 
How  much  else  of  works  of  art,  of  historical 
memorials,  of  beautiful  buildings,  perished  may 
only  be  surmised.  Esarhaddon  admits  that  he 
carried  away  from  the  temples  fifty-five  royal 
statues.  It  was  a  complete  overthrow,  but 
the  resistance  had  been  slight  and  brief,  and 
the  land  was  happily  not  devoted  to  destruction. 

At  once  Esarhaddon  reorganized  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  country.  It  was  already  divided 
into  twenty-two  divisions,  called  nomes.  Over 
each  of  these  a  native  prince  was  set  up,  who 


THE  REIGN  OF  ESARHADDON 


409 


was  really  only  a  puppet  in  the  hands  of  the 
Assyrian  officials  and  assistants  by  whom  he 
was  surrounded.  Even  the  names  of  the 
cities  were  changed  into  Assyrian  forms,  so 
that,  for  example,  Sais  became  Kar-bel-matati 
(fortress  of  the  lord  of  lands),  and  Athribis 
was  to  be  Limmir-ishakku-Ashur,  though  the 
inhabitants  of  the  country  would  certainly 
never  adopt  such  ill-sounding  combinations  in 
the  room  of  that  to  which  their  ears  for  many 
generations  had  been  accustomed.1  But  that 
many  Egyptians  quickly  acquiesced  in  the 
new  order  of  affairs  is  perfectly  plain.  Over 
the  twenty-two  princes  Esarhaddon  set  Necho 
of  Sais  as  chief  king,  subject,  of  course,  to 
himself  as  the  real  overlord.  Necho  went  so 
far  in  devotion  to  his  Assyrian  masters  as 
even  to  give  his  son  an  Assyrian  name.  Tt 
is  no  wonder  that  the  heart  of  Esarhaddon 
swelled  with  pride  when  he  contemplated  this 
conquest.  That  the  youngest  -.power  in  the 
Orient  had  been  able  to  conquer  and  now  to 
administer  the  affairs  of  a  people  who  had 
been  famous  and  powerful  centuries  before  the 
first  Babylonian  colonists  had  settled  in  Asshur 
was  indeed  cause  sufficient  for  boasting. 

As  the  victorious  conqueror  marched  home- 


1  For  details  of  the  campaign  see  the  Stele  already  referred  to,  K.  3082 
(Winckler,  Untersuchungen  zur  Alt  oriental ise.hen  Geschichte,  pp.  97-99) ; 
Rogers,  Two  Texts  of  Esarhaddon  in  Haverford  College  Studies  No.  2 
(with  autograph  facsimile  of  the  text);  and  Bu.  91-2  9,  218  (Winckler, 
Altorientalische  Forschungen,  ii,  pp.  21-23). 


410  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


ward  he  set  up  by  the  Dog  River  (Nahr-el- 
Kelb)  his  portrait  and  an  inscription  where 
the  Egyptian  conquerors  of  Asia  had  once 
placed  the  memorials  of  their  greatness.  At 
Sama’  al  (Zinjirli)  he  placed  a  yet  more  striking 
and  boastful  monument1  in  which  he  is  repre¬ 
sented  as  a  great  figure,  and  before  him  in 
diminutive  size  are  Tirhaka  kneeling,  and  Baal 
king  of  Tyre,  both  with  rings  in  their  lips 
from  which  cords  reach  the  hands  of  Esar- 
haddon.  Henceforth  he  called  himself  “king 
of  the  kings  of  Egypt/’  or  “King  of  Egypt 
and  Cush,”  and  none  of  his  fathers  had  ever 
borne  a  title  of  such  distinction  as  these. 

Though  the  greatest  by  far,  this  conquest 
of  Egypt  was  not  Esarhaddon ’s  only  victory 
in  the  west  besides  Sidon.  Various  Arabian 
tribes  had  given  trouble  to  Sargon  and  to 
Sennacherib,  and  Esarhaddon  was  not  free 
from  the  same  difficulties.  Before  his  first 
Egyptian  campaign  in  674  he  had  been  com¬ 
pelled  to  attack  Melukhkha.  Melukhkha  had 
indeed  no  political  organization  coterminous 
with  its  geographical  boundaries.  Sennacherib 
mentions  a  king  of  Melukhkha,  but  he  could 
hardly  have  reigned  over  a  country  so  extensive 
as  that  which  the  word  covers  in  the  Assyrian 
inscriptions.  Esarhaddon  began  his  raid,  for 

1  Konigl.  Museen  in  Berlin.  Mittheilungen  aus  den  Orientalischen 
Sammlungen,  Heft  XI,  Ausgrabungen  in  Sendschirli  I.  I.  Monolith  des 
Asarhaddon,  pp.  11-29  (Felix  von  Luschan).  II.  Insclirift  Asarhad- 
don’s,  Konigs  von  Assyrien,  pp.  30-43  (Fiberhard  Schrader). 


THE  REIGN  OF  ESARHADDON 


411 


it  was  little  else,  from  Palestine.  The  deserts 
were  a  sore  trial  to  his  troops,  unused  to  any 
such  campaigning,  and  would  have  been  de¬ 
struction  to  them  but  for  the  help  given  by 
the  people  of  the  little  kingdom  of  Aribi.  Esar- 
haddon  penetrated  into  the  land  as  far  prob¬ 
ably  as  Mount  Shamar.  The  king  of  Melukhkha 
was  taken  captive,  a  matter  of  moment  only 
in  this,  that  he  might  have  become  an  ally 
of  Egypt.  The  entire  campaign  was  only 
undertaken  to  set  the  people  in  dread  of  Assyria 
and  so  make  them  careful  to  give  no  aid  or 
comfort  to  Assyria’s  enemies. 

In  this  same  connection  it  is  interesting  to 
observe  Esarhaddon’s  treatment  of  the  small 
land  of  Aribi,  the  part  of  northern  Arabia  which 
comes  up  between  Palestine  and  the  Euphrates 
valley.  The  Assyrian  kings  had  already  had 
dealings  with  two  queens  of  this  country. 
Tiglathpileser,  Sargon,  and  Sennacherib  had 
also  ravaged  in  Aribi,  and  the  land  had  been 
brought  in  a  considerable  measure  under  the 
influence  of  Assyria.  Hazael,  a  king  of  Aribi, 
had  suffered  much  from  Sennacherib,  and  had 
been  especially  bereaved  in  the  loss  of  his  gods, 
which  had  been  carried  away.  Emboldened, 
perhaps,  by  the  knowledge  that  Esarhaddon 
had  reversed  his  father’s  policy  in  Babylonia, 
he  besought  the  king  for  the  return  of  his  gods. 
The  prayer  was  granted,  and  a  friendly  feel¬ 
ing  thus  reestablished.  And  now  followed  a 


412  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


very  strange  act.  Esarhaddon  set  up  a  new 
queen  in  Aribi,  who  appears  not  to  have  dis¬ 
turbed  the  established  order  at  all.  Her  name 
was  Tabua,  and  she  had  been  reared  at  the 
Assyrian  court.  How  she  could  have  reigned 
as  queen  while  Hazael  continued  as  king  is 
somewhat  difficult  of  explanation.1  It  appears 
probable  that  we  have  here  an  instance  of  a 
sort  of  double  rule.  Perhaps  the  situation 
is  like  that  which  existed  in  the  Nabathean 
kingdom  at  a  very  much  later  date.  These 
kings  mention  their  queens  in  their  inscrip¬ 
tions  and  stamp  their  heads  along  with  their 
own  upon  coins,  which  would  seem  to  indicate 
that  they  exercised  some  influence  in  the 
state.2  Hazael  died  during  the  reign  of  Esar¬ 
haddon,  and  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  variously 
called  Ya’lu  and  Yatab 

In  the  reign  of  Esarhaddon  there  was  felt 
for  the  first  time  in  all  its  keenness  the  danger 
of  an  overflow  of  the  land  by  great  Indo- 
European  immigrations.  Long  before  this  time 
these  peoples,  living  in  what  is  now  southern 
Russia,  had  begun  to  spread  southward.  The 
Medes  formed  one  great  wave  of  their  migra¬ 
tion.  They  had,  however,  turned  eastward, 
had  settled  in  the  mountains  northeast  of 

1  Maspero  ( Passing  of  the  Empires,  p.  358)  makes  her  simply  the 
wife  of  Hazael,  and  says  nothing  of  the  expression  in  Cylinder  A  and 
C,  iii,  14,  in  which  dominion  over  the  country  is  expressly  attributed 
to  her. 

2  Winckler,  Geschichte,  p.  267. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ESARHADDON 


413 


Assyria,  and  beyond  Elam,  and  had  not  dis¬ 
turbed  the  Assyrian  empire.  Greater  migra¬ 
tions  than  that  of  the  Medes  were  now  becom¬ 
ing  severely  threatening.  One  wave  swept 
down  from  the  northern  shores  of  the  Black 
Sea,  and  met  with  the  first  Asiatic  power  in 
Armenia.  Armenia  was  not  now  the  power 
it  once  had  been,  but  it  was,  nevertheless, 
strong  enough  to  separate  the  Indo-European 
horde  as  by  a  wedge.  One  great  mass  moved 
westward  into  Asia  Minor.  The  other  and 
much  less  formidable  went  westward  and  south¬ 
ward  into  the  outlying  Assyrian  provinces. 
The  name  of  a  leader  in  this  second  stream  of 
migration  has  come  down  to  us  in  the  form  of 
Ishpakai,  who  is  called  an  Ashguzsean,  which 
may  be  the  same  as  the  biblical  Ashkenaz.1 
This  man,  leading  his  horde  of  Indo-European 
barbarians,  came  as  far  as  Lake  Urumiyeh. 
Here  he  found  the  people  of  Man,2  who  had 
felt  the  Assyrian  power  and  had  paid  their 
annual  tribute  like  their  neighbors.  They  had, 
however,  been  entirely  undisturbed  for  a  long 
time,  as  Sennacherib  had  not  invaded  their 
territory  at  all  during  his  reign.  In  the  migra¬ 
tion  of  the  Indo-Europeans  they  saw  a  hope 
of  securing  aid  by  which  all  allegiance  to  As¬ 
syria  might  perhaps  be  thrown  off.  It  was  a 
plan  of  folly,  for  the  new  lords  which  they 


1  Jer.  li,  27. 

2  Knudtzon,  Assyrische  Gebete,  ii,  p.  130. 


414  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


would  thus  secure  were  not  likely  to  be  any 
better  than  the  old  ones  whom  they  put  off. 
Esarhaddon,  learning  of  this  alliance,  invaded 
the  country  and  conquered  Ishpakai,  apparently 
without  much  trouble.1  It  was  the  easy  victory 
of  discipline  over  disorder.  Esarhaddon  may 
have  satisfied  his  own  mind  with  the  thought 
that  he  had  removed  a  great  danger,  but  in 
reality  his  victory  was  of  very  slight  conse¬ 
quence.  He  had  indeed  broken  down  this 
alliance,  but  he  had  not  disposed  of  the  hordes 
of  men  who  formed  the  migration.  Their 
leaders  were  ever  seeking  some  new  method 
of  harassing  his  outposts  and  plundering  his 
tributary  states.  Some,  like  Kashtariti,  even 
threatened  the  very  existence  of  the  common¬ 
wealth,  for  he  attempted  to  form  a  great  coali¬ 
tion  of  the  Mannai,  the  Cimmerians,  and  the 
Chaldians.  It  fell  to  pieces  from  mutual 
jealousies,  but  not  without  sending  Esarhaddon 
in  dread  to  consult  still  further  the  oracles  of 
the  sun  god.2 

While  there  were  shrewd  men  like  Kash¬ 
tariti  among  these  immigrants,  who  needed  to 
be  treated  with  consideration  and  firmness,  the 
greater  mass  were  like  dumb,  driven  cattle. 
The  Indo-Europeans,  indeed,  were  not  an  organ¬ 
ized  body  aiming  at  a  definite  conquest  of 
Assyrian  territory.  They  were  rather  hordes 

1  Cylinders  A  and  C,  ii,  27-31;  B,  col.  iii,  16-18. 

2  Knudtzon,  Assyrische  Gebete,  ii,  pp.  72-82. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ESARHADDON 


415 


of  semibarbaric  and  hungry  men  pushed  from 
old  homes  and  seeking  new  ones.  Many  of 
them  settled  in  Man,  and  cared  not  if  they 
did  have  to  join  in  the  annual  payment  of  an 
Assyrian  tribute.  The  great  bulk  of  the  migra¬ 
tion  moved  on  into  the  Assyrian  province  of 
Parsua,  which  was  quietly  and  irresistibly  over¬ 
flowed  and  filled  with  a  new  population.  Then 
spreading  yet  farther,  they  went  on  into  Media. 
Here  was  already  settled  a  population  of  closely 
related  stock  who  had  migrated  thither  at  an 
earlier  day,  and  had,  as  we  have  seen,  offered 
but  a  feeble  resistance  to  the  Assyrian  kings 
who  were  engaged  in  plundering  raids.  They 
were  unable  to  keep  out  the  newcomers  who 
quietly  settled  among  them.  Some  of  the 
Median  princes  appealed  to  Esarhaddon  for 
aid  in  keeping  out  the  unwelcome  immigrants. 
The  Medes  had  formed  as  yet  no  central  govern¬ 
ment.  They  had  not  been  genuinely  engrafted 
into  the  Assyrian  empire,  and  they  were  un¬ 
able  in  any  united  way  to  oppose  the  new 
migration.  If  there  had  been  less  centralized 
government  in  Assyria  and  no  standing  army, 
the  very  soil  of  the  ancient  Assyria  would 
undoubtedly  have  been  overrun.  Only  the 
disciplined  forces  which  were  ready  to  oppose 
them  wherever  they  appeared  diverted  the 
barbarians  who  had  passed  eastward  from 
Urartu  into  Media. 

Among  the  Median  princes  who  begged  Esar- 


416  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


haddon  for  help  against  the  engulfing  wave 
were  Uppis  of  Partakka,  Sanasana  of  Partukka, 
and  Ramateya  of  Urakazabarna.1  Esarhaddon 
was  probably  glad  of  the  invitation  to  inter¬ 
fere.  He  had  reason  to  be,  for  he  was  threat¬ 
ened  in  a  twofold  manner  by  this  migration 
on  his  eastern  borders.  In  the  very  beginning 
he  was  being  deprived  of  control  in  provinces 
from  which  much  tribute  had  been  brought, 
and  without  the  payment  of  tribute  the  stand¬ 
ing  army  which  had  made  Assyria  powerful 
could  not  be  kept  up.  Assyrian  merchants 
would  never  pay  taxes  for  its  maintenance. 
He  was  further  in  fear  lest  these  new  Indo- 
Europeans  engrafted  on  the  old  stock  might 
make  a  new  state  with  a  government  of  its 
own,  central  in  position,  ample  in  authority, 
and  strong  enough  to  threaten  its  neighbors 
no  less  than  to  maintain  its  own  integrity. 
When  that  came  to  pass  Assyria  would 
have  on  the  east  an  enemy  more  dangerous 
than  Chaldia  had  been  on  the  north.  Esar- 
haddon’s  campaign  to  help  these  Median  princes 
amounted  to  nothing  in  its  results,  and  we 
are,  of  course,  not  told  how  much  the  army 
suffered  in  losses  before  it  was  withdrawn. 

Another  expedition  with  similar  purposes  was 
directed  against  the  country  of  Patusharra,  which 
Esarhaddon  carefully  locates  between  the  Bikni 
mountains  (Demavend)  and  the  desert,  which 


1  Cylinders  A  and  C,  iv,  19-37,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  pp.  132-135. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ESARHADDON  417 

must  be  the  salt  desert  of  northern  Persia. 
Here  he  took  prisoners  two  Medo-Persian  princes 
named  Shitir-parna  and  Eparna.1  There  was 
no  valuable  result  from  this  expedition  also, 
or  we  had  had  it  set  forth  with  much  earnest¬ 
ness  and  enthusiasm  by  Esarhaddon.  That  he 
was  alarmed  by  these  easterly  migrations  is 
beyond  doubt. 

The  nomads  could  not  pierce  the  ancient 
land  nor  approach  to  Nineveh  itself;  the  armies 
were  too  strong  and  the  fortified  outposts  too 
numerous  for  that.  They  were,  however,  quickly 
overspreading  a  rich  and  valuable  country 
which  the  Assyrians  had  tried  to  conquer,  and 
had  partially  succeeded  in  conquering,  and 
had  undoubtedly  hoped  to  fit  fully  into  the 
empire.  But  the  nomads  were  making  this 
forever  impossible.  The  Assyrian  armies  might 
conquer  them  here  and  there,  but  it  was  only 
along  the  edges  of  the  slow-moving  current. 
The  great  volume  pressed  behind,  and  the 
tide  advanced  again.  Esarhaddon  was  at  last 
compelled  to  accept  the  inevitable,  and  watched 
fearfully  while  the  people  who  had  been  nomads 
as  it  seemed  but  yesterday  were  settled  in 
the  valleys,  engaged  in  agriculture,  and  making 
the  first  steps  toward  the  organization  of  a 
new  state.  In  these  days  the  provinces  which 
had  been  first  overrun  and  plundered  by  the 
Assyrians,  and  then  organized  and  colonized, 


1  Cylinders  A  and  C,  iv,  8-18;  B,  iv,  3-9. 


418  HISTOEY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYEIA 


were  taken  from  Assyria  forever.  Herein  was 
enacted  the  same  drama  which  centuries  later 
took  place  in  Italy,  as  the  northern  barbarians 
came  southward  over  the  mountains  and  seized 
the  plains  of  Lombardy.  Rome  could  make 
only  a  feeble  resistance,  and  a  little  later  even 
the  capital  went  down  before  them.  The 
parallel  goes  even  that  far  also,  for  Nineveh 
likewise  was  done  to  destruction  through  the 
help  of  these  same  barbarians  who  now  settled 
in  her  outlying  provinces. 

We  have  traced  from  its  first  diversion  in 
LTrartu  the  eastern  branch  of  the  Indo-European 
migration  until  its  settlement  in  the  north¬ 
eastern  Assyrian  provinces  and  in  Media.  The 
western  branch  was  vastly  more  formidable  in 
numbers  and  power.  While  the  eastern  branch 
has  no  distinctive  general  name  applied  to  the 
entire  body,  the  western  is  known  under  the 
name  of  the  Cimmerians.  From  Urartu  they 
went  westward,  passing  through  the  provinces 
of  Assyria  which  had  formed  the  kingdom  of 
Urartu.  Assyria  was  undoubtedly  fearful  of 
the  issue.  If  the  head  of  the  stream  should 
be  diverted  southward  ever  so  little,  it  would 
be  pressed  by  the  following  masses  into 
Mesopotamia,  and  no  man  was  farsighted 
enough  to  know  the  result  of  a  situation  like 
that.  The  end  of  the  Assyrian  empire  might 
even  now  be  at  hand.  Esarhaddon  must  strike 
the  moving  body  a  blow  strong  enough  to 


THE  REIGN  OF  ESAEHADDON 


419 


sweep  it  farther  northward  and  make  certain 
its  diversion  into  the  land  of  Asia  Minor,  and 
not  into  Syria.  He  did  deliver  his  stroke 
against  the  Cimmerians  at  a  place  called  Khu- 
bushna,  in  northern  Cilicia,  tie  boasts  that 
he  conquered  Teuspa,  a  Cimmerian,  a  Manda 
• — that  is,  a  nomad  or  Scythian.1  There  is  very 
little  to  be  said  of  the  victory,  and  the  prob¬ 
ability  is  that  Esarhaddon  had  not  assaulted 
the  main  body  at  all,  which  was  moving  rather 
northwesterly,  but  only  one  portion  which  had 
turned  southward.  However  that  may  be, 
the  chief  object  of  Esarhaddon’s  concern  was 
achieved.  The  Cimmerians  moved  on  into 
Kappadokia,  entering  Asia  Minor  rather  than 
Mesopotamia.  The  little  kingdoms  of  Meshech 
and  Tabal  fell  before  the  tide  of  migration. 
Assyria  lost  by  it  some  fine  provinces  in  the 
northwest,  as  we  have  seen  that  it  did  in  the 
northeast,  through  the  invasion  of  the  other 
branch  of  emigrants.  With  the  exception  of 
these  losses  Assyria  suffered  little.  It  is,  how¬ 
ever,  not  to  be  doubted  that  no  such  danger 
had  ever  before  assailed  the  Assyrian  empire. 
Esarhaddon  had  saved  it.  A  weak  king  at  this 
juncture  would  have  lost  all,  and  Assyria,  a 
barbarism  in  the  robes  of  civilization,  would 
have  been  engulfed.  It  is  idle  to  speculate 
on  the  possibilities  had  such  been  the  end  of 
the  invasion.  The  passing  of  the  headship 


1  Cylinders  A  and  C,  ii,  G-9. 


420  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


of  the  Semitic  races  from  Assyria  must  have 
had  momentous  consequences.  The  passing  of 
the  leadership  in  western  Asia  from  Semitic 
to  Indo-European  hands  was  clearly  impend¬ 
ing,  but  it  was  now  postponed  through  the 
energy,  the  foresight,  and  ability  of  Esar- 
haddon.  Even  if  his  name  had  not  been  en¬ 
rolled  among  the  greatest  of  Assyrian  kings 
by  the  conquest  and  annexation  of  Egypt,  he 
would  have  deserved  the  position  by  the  deliv¬ 
erance  from  the  Cimmerians  and  their  eastern 
fellows  in  these  very  threatening  days. 

The  ill  arrangement  and  the  fragmentary 
character  of  the  Esarhaddon  texts  leave  us 
much  in  doubt  concerning  the  latest  events 
of  his  reign.  He  took  the  city  of  Arzania,  in 
the  Syrian  desert,1  in  one  of  his  later  cam¬ 
paigns,  though  we  do  not  know  just  what  led 
to  the  attack. 

In  669  a  rebellion  of  some  kind  broke  out 
in  Assyria.  We  have  no  knowledge  of  its  cause 
or  purpose,  but  it  was  put  down  with  a  strong 
hand,  Esarhaddon  promptly  causing  the  death 
of  the  chief  men  concerned  in  it.2  A  man  of 
his  temperament  was  not  likely  to  be  lenient 
in  such  matters. 

In  668  he  undertook  a  campaign  into  Egypt. 
We  are  not  well  informed  as  to  the  cause  of 
this,  for  our  knowledge  of  it  rests  not  on  any 


1  Cylinders  A  and  C,  i,  55,  56. 

2  Babylonian  Chronicle,  iv,  29. 


THE  KE1GN  OF  E8AKHADDON 


421 


of  Esarhaddon’s  own  inscriptions,  but  only  on 
the  brief  mention  of  the  Babylonian  Chron¬ 
icle.1  It  is  probable  that  there  had  already 
begun  in  Egypt  the  situation  which  demanded 
the  strenuous  efforts  of  Esarhaddon’s  successor. 

Before  he  set  out  on  this  expedition  he  must 
have  felt  some  premonitory  symptoms  which 
made  him  doubt  the  long  continuance  of  his 
life,  for  he  took  steps  to  provide  for  his  suc¬ 
cessor.  In  this  he  may  have  been  influenced 
by  a  desire  to  spare  the  people,  if  possible,  such 
a  chapter  of  difficulties  as  confronted  him  in 
the  beginning  of  his  own  reign.  In  the  month 
of  Iyyar,  668,  at  the  great  festival  of  Gula, 
he  caused  to  be  published  a  proclamation  com¬ 
manding  all  the  inhabitants  of  Assyria,  both 
great  and  small,  from  the  upper  to  the  lower 
sea,  to  honor  and  acknowledge  his  son  Ashur- 
banipal  as  the  crown  prince  and  future  king. 
This  was  the  deed  of  a  wise  and  prudent  man. 
Unhappily  he  coupled  with  it  another  provision, 
which  was  fraught  with  the  most  awful  conse¬ 
quences,  and  can  only  be  characterized  as  an 
act  of  folly.  In  Babylon  at  the  same  time  he 
caused  his  son  Shamash-shum-ukin2  to  be  pro- 

1  Ibid.,  30. 

2  The  name  Shamash-shum-ukin  corresponds  to  the  name  'Laoadovx'tvoq 
in  the  Ptolemaic  canon.  Professor  Clay  ( Babylonian  Records  in  the 
Library  of  J.  Pier-pont  Morgan  Part  I,  pp.  11,  12)  has  argued  that  the 
name  should  be  read  Gisshir-shum-ukin,  because  it  is  always  written 

V  V  V  # 

with  the  first  element  GIS-SIR,  or  GIS-NU,  and  never  with  the  sign 
UD=Sama§.  The  argument  has  weight,  but  I  cannot  feel  that  it  is 
conclusive.  The  Greek  transliteration  seems  entitled  to  decide  it. 


422  HISTORY  OP  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


claimed  as  king  of  Babylon.  If  Ashurbanipal 
were  to  rule  as  king  in  Assyria,  and  another 
brother  were  to  be  king  in  Babylon,  no  matter 
what  regulations  of  power  or  agreements  of 
authority  were  arranged  between  them,  there 
would  inevitably  be  a  reopening  of  the  old 
difficulty,  the  old  jealousy  and  strife,  between 
Assyria  and  Babylonia.  Sennacherib  had  felt 
this  so  severely  that  he  had  tried  to  terminate 
all  disputes  by  the  destruction  of  Babylon. 
Esarhaddon  had  undone  that  wrong  by  re¬ 
building  the  city — a  colossal  enterprise  now 
nearly  finished — and  from  the  very  beginning 
of  that  great  work  until  this  proclamation  of 
Shamash-shum-ukin  he  had  secured  peace  and 
at  least  a  measure  of  contentment  in  Baby¬ 
lonia.  There  was  now  strong  reason  to  hope 
that  by  rapid  and  easy  intercourse  between 
the  two  great  sections  of  the  Semitic  race  all 
ancient  animosities  and  jealousies  might  die 
out  and  the  countries  really  become  one.  This 
could  be  brought  about  only  by  the  possession 
of  power  in  the  hands  of  one  king,  by  central¬ 
ization,  in  which,  while  Assyria  held  chief 
place,  Babylonia  should  yet  receive  the  honor 
due  her,  because  of  her  venerable  antiquity 
and  her  great  culture.  Instead  of  a  wise  pro¬ 
vision  for  the  continuance  of  the  order  by 
which  Esarhaddon  was  king  of  Assyria  and 
shakkanak  of  Babylon — an  order  that  for  now 
twelve  long  years  had  produced  and  main- 


THE  REIGN  OF  ESARHADDON 


423 


tamed  peace — Esarhaddon  had  provided  for  the 
return  of  an  old  order,  often  tried  and  always 
a  failure.  Babylonia  would  get  a  taste  of  semi¬ 
independence  and  would  at  once  yearn  for 
something  more.  The  ruler  set  over  her,  be 
he  never  so  faithful  to  his  father  and  to  Assyria, 
would  be  forced  inevitably  into  rebellion  or  lose 
his  head  and  his  throne  altogether.  In  this 
decision  Esarhaddon  was  following  old  Oriental 
precedents,  which  have  also  often  been  imitated 
since  his  day.  He  was  dividing  his  kingdom,  and 
there  would  be  shedding  of  blood  ere  the  reuniting 
if,  indeed,  it  were  possible  ever  to  achieve  it. 

The  forebodings  of  Esarhaddon  had  been 
well  founded.  On  his  way  to  Egypt  he  fell 
sick,  and  on  the  tenth  day  of  Marcheshwan, 
in  the  year  668,  he  died.1 

He  had  had  sore  trials  and  great  difficulties. 
He  had  endured  grievous  defeats  and  sus¬ 
tained  severe  losses,  but  he  had,  nevertheless, 
had  a  glorious  reign.  That  the  provinces 
which  once  paid  great  tribute  were  lost  to  the 
Indo-Europeans  upon  the  northeast  and  north¬ 
west  was  less  his  fault  than  his  misfortune. 
No  king  could  well  have  done  more  than  he, 
and  it  is  to  the  credit  of  his  ability  that  he 
did  not  lose  much  more,  even  the  whole  of 
Mesopotamia  or  even  Assyria,  for  no  army, 
however  well  led,  was  of  permanent  value 
against  a  moving  mass  of  men  with  unknowing 

1  Babylonian  Chronicle,  iv,  31,  Kcilinschrifl.  Bibl.,  ii,  pp.  284,  285. 


424  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


and  unthinking  thousands  pressing  from  the 
rear.  These  losses  were  far  more  than  com¬ 
pensated  by  the  gaining  of  the  fertile  and  beau¬ 
tiful  valley  of  the  Nile.  With  this  added,  even 
though  much  was  lost,  Esarhaddon  left  the 
Assyrian  empire  larger  and  greater  than  it 
had  ever  been  before.  In  battle  and  in  siege, 
in  war  against  the  most  highly  civilized  peoples 
and  in  war  upon  barbarians,  Esarhaddon  had 
been  so  successful  that  he  must  rank  with 
Sargon  and  Tiglathpileser  IV,  and  must  be 
placed  far  in  advance  of  his  father,  Sennacherib. 
In  him,  in  spite  of  mercy  shown  a  number  of 
times,  there  raged  a  fierceness  and  a  thirst 
for  blood  and  revenge  that  remind  us  force¬ 
fully  of  Ashurnazirpal.  His  racial  inheritance 
had  overcome  his  personal  mildness. 

In  works  of  peace  no  less  than  in  war  he 
was  great  and  successful.  In  the  city  of  Nineveh 
he  restored  and  entirely  rebuilt  a  great  arsenal 
and  treasure-house  which  had  already  been 
restored  by  Sennacherib.1  At  Tarbis  he  began 
the  erection,  probably  somewhat  late  in  his 
reign,  of  a  great  palace  intended  for  the  occu¬ 
pation  of  his  son  Ashurbanipal.  At  Calah 
he  also  began  an  immense  palace,  which  re¬ 
mained  unfinished  when  he  died.  The  excavated 
ruins  reveal  a  ground  plan  of  vast  extent,  and 
the  fragmentary  sculptures  show  that  the  build¬ 
ing  was  richly  decorated  and  beautified. 


1  Cylinders  A  and  C,  iv,  49-59. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ESARHADDON 


425 


On  the  north  front  of  the  ancient  sacred 
city  of  Asshur  he  pierced  a  new  gate,  and  then 
greatly  strengthened  the  wall  which  protected  it.1 

All  these  constructions,  though  they  were 
numerous  enough  and  great  enough  to  have 
lent  distinction  to  the  reign  of  almost  any  of 
the  kings  who  had  reigned  before  him,  were 
comparatively  insignificant  by  the  side  of  the 
rebuilding  of  Babylon.  In  spite  of  the  in- 
scriptions  and  the  fragments  which  are  de¬ 
voted  to  the  celebration  of  this  work  it  is 
impossible  to  form  any  adequate  idea  of  so 
colossal  an  undertaking.  The  most  striking 
visible  evidence  of  his  labors  has  been  the 
discovery  of  a  pavement  in  the  great  temple 
of  Esagila,  laid  carefully  with  fine  large  bricks2 
stamped  with  his  name  and  titles.  He  had 
surely  rebuilt  in  part,  or  restored  Marduk’s 
home,  paying  honor  to  the  god  who  had  made 
Babylon  great,  who  must  have  felt  deep  anger 
at  Sennacherib’s  works  of  destruction.  Esar- 
haddon  had  become  a  restorer  of  a  holy  place, 
round  which  men  might  again  build  their  homes. 
He  saw  the  city  reinhabited  and  beginning 
again  a  glorious  career,  where,  at  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  his  reign,  there  had  been  a  swamp  and 
a  desert. 

The  last  reign  of  great  achievements  in  both 
war  and  peace  was  over  in  Assyria.  The 

1  Esarhaddon’s  Mushlal  inscriptions,  see  Andrae,  Die  Festungswerke 
von  Assur,  Texthand,  p.  177,  and  compare  ibid. ,  p.  8. 

2  See  Koldewey,  Dan  wieder  erstehende  Babylon,  pp.  204,  205. 


426  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

morrow  would  bring  change  and  confusion.  A 
man  who  had  mingled  mildness  and  severity 
in  unusual  degree  had  gone  out  from  among 
men,  and  his  sons  would  never  be  able  to 
exhibit  such  qualities  in  union. 


CHAPTER  X 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURBANIPAL 

When  Esarhaddon  was  dead  there  was  no 
war  of  succession  and  no  difficulty  about  the 
passing  to  his  son  of  all  his  powers  and  titles. 
Ashurbanipal,  the  Sardanapalus  of  the  Greeks 
and  the  Latins,  and  the  Asnapper1  of  the 
Old  Testament,  became  king  in  Nineveh,  and 
his  brother,  Shamash-shum-ukin,  was  likewise 
everywhere  received  as  king  of  Babylon.  The 
dual  control  in  the  Assyrian  empire  began  with 
great  promise  of  success,  though  exposed  to  the 
difficulties  and  dangers  already  enumerated. 

Of  this  reign  we  have  much  historical  ma¬ 
terial.2  Ashurbanipal  was  devoted  to  the  col¬ 
lection  of  books,  and  equally  interested  in 

1  Ezra  iv,  10,  R.  V.,  Osnappar  better  Asenappar. 

—  :  t 

2  It  is  unnecessary  to  give  a  survey  of  the  inscriptions  of  this  reign. 
They  are  all  enumerated  and  also  analyzed  in  M.  Streck,  Assurbanipal 
rnit  Nachfolgern  ( Vordcrasiatische  Bibliothek) .  I  regret  that  this  book 
has  not  yet  appeared,  as  this  history  goes  to  press.  For  further  analysis 
of  the  relative  value  as  sources  of  the  separate  texts  see  Olmstead,  Assyrian 
Historiography.  The  most  elaborate  is  the  splendidly  preserved  Rassam 
Prism,  containing  1,803  lines  of  writing  on  ten  sides,  published  V  R.  1-10 
(with  numerous  variants  from  other  texts).  It  is  translated  into  German 
by  P.  Jensen,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  152-237.  In  addition  to  the  trans¬ 
lation  of  this  particular  text  Jensen  has  also  translated  certain  parallel 
and  supplemental  passages  from  other  inscriptions  (ibid.,  pp.  236-269), 
in  which  most  of  the  matter  needed  for  historical  purposes  is  contained. 
For  more  complete  lists  of  the  inscriptions  belonging  to  the  reign  the 
following  may  be  consulted:  Bezold,  Kurzgefasster  Ueberblick  iiber  die 

427 


428  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


their  production.  He  took  pains  that  his  deeds 
and  his  wars,  his  buildings  and  his  very  thoughts 
and  hopes,  should  be  carefully  written  down. 
No  inscriptions  of  any  previous  reign  are  so 
beautifully  written  as  his.  None  are  so  smooth 
in  their  phrases,  so  glowing  in  their  pictures, 
so  sweeping  in  their  style.  But  the  care  as 
to  form  was  carried  so  far  as  to  obscure  at 
times  the  sense,  and  one  wishes  for  the  bald 
directness  of  the  older  monuments.  Further¬ 
more,  to  our  present  great  discomfiture,  the 
inscriptions  are  not  written  in  annalistic  form, 
with  the  events  of  every  year  carefully  blocked 
out  by  themselves.  We  are  therefore  often 
at  a  loss  to  determine  exactly  in  what  year  an 
important  event  took  place.  The  events  are 
set  forth  in  campaigns,  and  as  the  campaigns 
are  not  coterminous  with  the  years,  it  is  im¬ 
possible  accurately  to  date  events.  To  add 
to  the  difficulty  the  Babylonian  Chronicle  does 
not  help  us  any  longer  with  its  brief  notes  of 
events  and  their  exact  location  in  time.* 1  The 
only  dates  of  his  reign  which  have  come  down 

Babylonisch-Assyrische  Liter atar,  pp.  108-121;  George  Smith,  History 
of  Assurbanipal,  London,  1871;  Samuel  Alden  Smith,  Die  Keilschrift- 
texte  Asurbanipal' s  Konigs  von  Assyrien  (678-626  v.  chr .)  nach  dem 
selbst  in  London  copierten  Grundtext,  mil  Transcription ,  U ebersetzung , 
Kovimentar  und  vollstandigen  Glossar.  Leipzig,  1887-89.  There  are 
discussions  of  some  important  questions  concerning  the  Ashurbanipal 
texts  in  Winckler,  Altorientalische  Forschungen,  especially  i,  pp.  244- 
253,  474-483.  In  the  narrative  below  references  are  given  to  other 
inscriptions  and  to  detailed  investigations  concerning  them. 

1  The  Babylonian  Chronicle  ends  at  the  very  beginning  of  Ashur- 
banipal’s  reign,  with  a  notice  of  the  campaign  in  Kirbit,  mentioned 
below. 


Ashurbanipal,  king  of  Assyria  (668-625  B.  C.), 
represented  mounted  and  drawing  the  bow.  British 
Museum. 

[Photograph  by  W.  A.  Mansell  &  Co.,  London.] 


J  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  AS 


nr  production.  He  took  pains  that  h 
mk!  his  wars,  his  buildings  and  his  very  thoughts 
and  hopes,  should  be  carefully  written  down. 
No  inscriptions  of  any  previous  reign  are  so 
beau  ;  '  v  bten  as  his.  None  are  so  smooth 
in  their  phrases,  so  glowing  in  their  pictures, 
so  sweeping  in  their  style.  But  the  care  as 
to  form  was  carried  so  far  as  to  ol  ■  n 
times  the  sense,  and  one  wishes  for  the  bald 
directness  of  the  older  monuments.  Further¬ 
more,  to  our  present  great  discomfiture,  the 
M  o£d-8O0)  ishyeg A  io  gmd  tkqicBd'rwdRA 
rfalihSL  .wod  odi  gniv/mb  baa  bednotei  bainaaaiqai 

•  '  nmiOHnl/. 

[nfobao  f  f  .o' >  h  Ho^ncTA  ;A  .W  vd  dq^^oiodd] 

important  event  took  place.  The  events  are 

Sf  t  or  ::!i  i  /a  c.n  ipaigns 

•  it  h  ears,  it  is  im-' 
possi  »*  mccut  ■  '  •  i  j-nts.  v  To  add 

to  ; ><  di hie ) i h ;  < :  v  .  *h « )i i i :-m  ( ' hronicle  does 
not  cip  u  unge.  with  its  brief  notes  of 

»  >  !■  :xaet  vocation  in  time.’  The 

which  have  come  -down 

>  .  •  LU>  -  .  >) ,  pp.  10s  121;  Oeo :•?/;»  Smith,  K  iory 

of  A-  -  irlu  •u  n,  .1871;  Samuel  Alden  Smith,  Di  KeiUschrift- 

l  "i  4 .-•••/  i  >/i i{fs  von.  Aasyrien  (078-626  v.  c‘>r.)  nach  dem 

*,•.  •  rnn «{■'  rt,  m.  Tran 

i<m  Glosaar*  Leipzig,  1887  89.  are 

cl.  c  -  >iru  ini  <ju< -.-lions  cQueerriing  the  Ashurbanipal 

•  i 

258  474  483.  In  i  ive  below  r  ter*  nees  are  given  >o  other 

1 1  • 

bar  pal’.-  e  *  of  the  campaign  in  Kirbit,  mentioned 

‘ 


II — 428 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURBANIPAL 


429 


to  us  beyond  all  doubt  are,  first,  the  very 
central  event  of  the  reign,  the  result  of  the 
inevitable  conflict  with  his  brother,  and,  sec¬ 
ondly,  the  date  of  his  death.  We  are  there¬ 
fore  deprived  of  any  guide  to  the  chronology 
of  the  events,  and  are  compelled  to  view  them 
all  as  Ashurbanipal  has  arranged  them  for 
us,  in  the  form  of  campaigns.  This  is  the 
more  unsatisfactory,  as  we  have,  at  least  in 
one  instance,  clear  proof  that  the  order  of 
the  campaigns  is  logical  rather  than  chron¬ 
ological.  Ashurbanipal,  or  rather  his  historiog¬ 
rapher,  has  grouped  them  according  to  a  scheme 
along  which  they  seemed  to  his  mind  to  develop. 
That  this  order  was  artificial  rather  than 
natural  is  shown  by  one  brief  hint  in  the  Baby¬ 
lonian  Chronicle  concerning  an  expedition  to 
Ivirbit,  a  district  of  Elam.  From  Kirbit  plun¬ 
dering  hordes  of  men  had  been  sweeping  down 
into  Emutbal,  which  was  the  original  home 
land  of  Eri-Aku  before  he  entered  upon  rule 
at  Larsa.  Emutbal  now  belonged  to  Babylonia, 
and  Ashurbanipal  must  defend  it  if  possible. 
To  discharge  this  obligation  he  sent  an  army 
against  it  which  soon  devastated  the  land, 
“dyed  the  rivers  with  blood  as  one  dyes 
wool” — the  phrase  is  Ashurbanipaks — and  plun¬ 
dered  the  country.  This  expedition,  according 
to  the  Chronicles,1  took  place  in  667,  the  first 

1  Chronicle,  iv,  37  ( Keilinschrift .  Bibl.,  ii,  284,  285).  This  date  is 
confirmed  by  K.  2846  (Winckler,  Altorientalische  Forschungen,  i,  pp. 
474.  ff.). 


430  HISTORY  OR  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


full  year  of  Ashurbanipal’s  reign,  and  was 
therefore  the  first  expedition  actually  begun 
and  ended  b}r  him.1  In  his  inscriptions,  how¬ 
ever,  it  figures  as  the  fifth  and  not  as  the  first 
campaign.  It  was,  however,  of  little  conse¬ 
quence,  and  the  momentous  events  of  the 
long  and  brilliant  reign  begin  with  the  expedi¬ 
tions  to  Egypt. 

Esarhaddon  had  died  on  the  way  to  Egypt, 
and  left  the  necessary  expedition  as  a  part 
of  the  inheritance  to  his  son.  When  he  made 
his  brilliant  campaign  in  Egypt  he  had  met 
with  but  slight  resistance;  Tirhaqa  had  not 
fought  at  all,  but  had  fled  to  Nubia.  Esar¬ 
haddon  did  not  pursue  him  thither,  but  reor¬ 
ganized  the  administration  of  the  country,  and 
left  Tirhaqa  to  rest  in  his  own  home  land. 
But  Tirhaqa  waited  but  a  short  time  to  gain 
accessions  of  strength,  and  then  entered  Egypt 
again,  which  he  speedily  reconquered.  The 
Assyrian  officers,  petty  princes,  and  civil  serv¬ 
ants  were  unceremoniously  driven  from  the 
land.  Memphis  was  retaken,  and  there  Tirhaqa 
set  up  his  court.  Egypt  was  in  reality  com¬ 
pletely  torn  from  Assyrian  hands,  and  the 
wonderful  work  of  Esarhaddon  undone.  It 
was  these  untoward  events  which  caused  the 
third  Egyptian  invasion  by  Esarhaddon  dur¬ 
ing  which  he  died.  All  these  events  are  nar¬ 
rated  in  the  inscriptions  of  Ashurbanipal  as 


1  K  2675,  Rev.  6  -12,  Keilinschrift.  Bill.,  ii,  pp.  174,  175. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURBANIPAL 


431 


though  they  had  taken  place  in  his  own  reign, 
and  not  in  the  last  year  of  his  father’s.  He 
has  some  excuse  for  this,  apart  from  the  desire 
of  further  glory  for  himself.  He  probably 
considered  himself  as  the  real  king  from  the 
twelfth  day  of  Iyyar,  668,  when  he  was  pro¬ 
claimed  as  crown  prince. 

Ashurbanipal,  as  soon  as  he  became  king, 
probably  ordered  the  army,  which  had  already 
set  out  for  Egypt  under  the  leadership  of  his 
father,  to  proceed.  Whether  he  himself  actually 
took  the  head  or  sent  it  on  under  command 
of  a  Tartan  is  doubtful.  The  narrative  is,  as 
usual,  in  the  first  person,  and  this  does  not 
prove  the  king’s  actual  presence.  Before  Egypt 
was  entered  Ashurbanipal  received  gifts  and 
protestations  of  loyalty  from  twenty-two  princes 
of  the  seacoast,  who  joined  forces  with  him. 
He  had  not  far  to  march  before  the  army  of 
Tirhaqa  was  met  at  Karbanit,  in  the  eastern 
or  central  part  of  the  Delta,  where  it  was 
defeated.  Tirhaqa  had  remained  in  Memphis, 
and  as  soon  as  he  heard  of  the  defeat  fled  to 
Thebes.  Memphis  was  occupied  by  the  As¬ 
syrians  without  opposition,  and  there  were 
received  all  the  princes,  prefects,  and  officers 
whom  Esarhaddon  had  set  in  authority  in 
Egypt,  but  who  had  fled  from  their  posts  on 
the  return  of  Tirhaqa.  They  were  all  reinstated 
and  the  Assyrian  rule  firmly  established.  Then, 
laden  with  heavy  plunder  from  the  richest 


432  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


country  of  the  world,  the  army  returned  to 
Assyria.  Whether  the  leaders  of  the  army 
were  suspicious  of  the  restored  princes  or  not, 
or  whether  they  had  received  some  hint  of  a 
conspiracy,  we  do  not  know,  but  they  held 
themselves  in  readiness  for  a  recall,  and  did 
not  proceed  directly  home. 

As  soon  as  the  faithless  governors  thought 
that  the  Assyrian  forces  were  withdrawn  three  of 
them,  Sharludari  of  Pelusium,  Pakruru  of  Pish- 
abtu  (Persepet),1  and  Necho  of  Memphis  and 
Sais,  began  to  plot  against  the  Assyrian  over¬ 
lordship.  They  sent  messengers  to  Tirhaqa 
asking  him  to  join  with  them.  The  Assyrian 
generals  were  on  the  watch  and  caught  the 
bearers  of  the  traitorous  dispatches.  With 
this  clear  evidence  in  hand  Sharludari  and 
Necho  were  suddenly  arrested,  and  only  Pakruru 
escaped.  Three  rebellious  cities,  Sais,  Mendes, 
and  Tanis,  all  in  the  Delta,  were  taken,  appar¬ 
ently  without  the  striking  of  a  blow.  The 
inhabitants  were  slain;  some  were  flayed  alive 
and  their  skins  were  spread  on  the  city  walls, 
while  the  bodies  of  others  were  impaled  upon 
stakes  about  the  city.  So  returned  again  in 
the  literary  days  of  Ashurbanipal  the  hideous 
atrocities  of  the  days  of  Ashurnazirpal.  It 
may  well  be  asked,  What  had  the  centuries 
of  progress  done  for  the  Assyrian  people? 

1  Pishabtu  is  marked  by  the  modern  village  of  Saft  el  Henneh,  in 
the  midst  of  a  most  fertile  part  of  Egypt.  See  Edouard  Naville,  The 
Shrine  of  Saft  el  Henneh  and  the  Land  of  Goshen.  London,  1887. 


Assyrian  relief,  soldiers  in  full  armor.  A  masterly 
work  of  art  and  interesting  as  showing  types  of  the 
men,  and  weapons,  who  conquered  western  Asia. 
The  period  is  that  of  Ashurbanipal  (668-625  B.  C.). 
British  Museum. 

[Photograph  by  Kleinmann  &  Co.,  Haarlem.] 


*.  '  •  :  '  :  A  V  '  I >  ASaY  JUA 


turned  to 

W  a  the  lean  rs  of  the  army 
**  restored  prii  or  not, 

kt  •:  e>  -Kid  received  some  hint  of  a 

ms  •;  V  five  do  not  know,  but  they  3 veld 

■ 

no  proceed  direct* y  home. 

As  soon  as  the  faithless  governors  thought 

•  •  •  •  .  s 

,  ir  a  ...  .r  f  •:  « ,  .  ■:> 

vhotdam  A  .loxntB  Uul  m  r/ioibloamoim  njsrrjggA 

.  §  ■  //oWa  §ni \%yi4 

Mist'  tnefriovr  botoupfiba  bdw  ^rroqhew  hhs  /nara 
.  (.0  M  528-800}  teqinechmf«A  to  kerb  ai  boikiq  AdT 
*  .hUfoaOM  fMkhH 

f  nerq:«.roI^fT  %6  i  iJSSfatH  Y.d  rfqr  •  1 

iis  ?k  ddern  koirkidari  and 

slid  .  ■  *  p  "•’*  ;  \i);\  Pakruru 

eaca  >ed.  Fhi  e  <h(  Yu.-  ;  n  ,  ais>  Mendes, 

and  .Tams,  all  ii  e  l  appar- 

i  y  wii  ho?  r  nking  of  a.  !  :ow, 

nie  were  flayed  ali 

and  their  were  spread  on  the  city  walls, 

•  ■  aha  '  aaoa 

city.  So  returned  again  in 

■ 

•itroc-kie:  *  th  3  o  AshurnazirpaL  It 
o  r  ie>  for  the  Assyrian  people? 


mod  rn  of  Sy ’t  cl  If  ?:  <-b,  £r* 


■ 

hr  ?  of  iff  cl  i(  l  ti  'X  Laird  of  Gonhen.  London, 


1 1— ^:>2 


THE  EEIGN  OF  ASHUKBAN IPAL 


433 


Ferocity  and  thirst  for  blood  were  here  found 
in  as  full  measure  as  ever.  Trie  leaders  of 
the  rebellion,  however,  were  much  better  treated. 
They  were  carried  in  chains  to  Nineveh,  where 
it  is  hardly  likely  that  they  would  be  tortured 
to  death.  Two  are  mentioned  no  more,  and 
one  was  handsomely  forgiven.  Necho  must 
have  been  a  man  of  forceful  character,  in  whom 
Ashurbanipal  recognized  a  servant  too  valuable 
to  be  lost.  In  spite  of  his  serious  breach  of 
faith  he  was  laden  with  costly  and  beautiful 
presents  and  returned  to  his  rule  at  Sais,  while 
his  son,  Nabu-shezib-anni,1  whose  Assyrian 
name  bears  witness  to  his  father’s  devotion 
to  Assyria,  was  set  to  rule  over  the  satrapy  of 
Athribis,  also  in  the  Delta  north  of  Memphis. 

These  events  began  in  668;  they  were  prob¬ 
ably  entirely  completed  in  667,  the  first  official 
year  of  the  reign  of  Ashurbanipal.  Egypt 
was  once  more  pacified  by  force,  and  there 
was  some  hope  that  this  peace  might  continue. 
Tirhaqa  withdrew  again  to  Nubia.  He  had 
long  held  out  against  Assyria,  and  his  heart 
was  still  hostile.  Others  might  accept  Assyrian 
presents  and  occupy  Assyrian  posts,  for  him 
there  was  only  a  longing  for  the  revenge  that 
never  came.  Death  hurried  him  away  before 
there  was  any  opportunity  for  another  re¬ 
bellion  against  the  arch  enemy  of  all  the  west.2 

1  His  name  had  been  Psammeticus. 

2  See,  for  an  assembling  of  the  inscription  material  relating  to  this 
Egyptian  campaign,  Winckler,  Untcrsuchunyen  zur  Allorientalischen 


434  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


When  he  was  gone  from  the  world  of  action 
his  policy  and  his  hopes,  nevertheless,  lived 
on.  Shabaka  had  left  a  son,  Tanut-Amon, 
whom  the  Assyrians  call  Tandamani.* 1  He  had 
now  come  to  man’s  estate  and  succeeded  to 
such  rights  and  titles  as  the  unfortunate  Tir- 
haqa,  his  stepfather,  had  to  leave.  With  the  army 
of  Tirhaqa,  and  accompanied,  undoubtedly,  by 
the  good  wishes  of  much  of  Egypt,  he  came  up 
from  Nubia  and  seized  Thebes.  That  this 
was  so  easily  accomplished  is  only  another 
evidence  that  the  real  power  of  Assyria  was 
concentrated  in  the  Delta  and  could  hardly 
be  said  to  extend  much  beyond  Memphis. 
With  Thebes  as  a  basis  Tandamani  advanced 
northward  and  gained  foothold  in  On,  or 
Heliopolis  having  been  encouraged  by  a  dream 
which  said:  “Thine  is  the  Southland;  take  for 
thyself  (also)  the  Northland.”2  How  long  he 
might  have  held  this  place  in  spite  of  attacks 
from  the  Assyrian  governors  in  Egypt  is  doubt¬ 
ful,  but  when  he  learned  of  the  advance  of 
the  Assyrian  army  to  relieve  the  city  he  aban- 

Geschichte,  pp.  101,  ff.,  and  especially  Winckler,  Altorientalische  For- 
schungen,  pp.  478,  ff. 

1  The  name  was  formerly  read  Urdamani  (for  example,  by  Jensen, 
Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  p.  167),  and  Urdamani  was  then  identified  with 
Red-Amon  or  Rud-Amen.  The  correct  reading,  Tandamani,  and 
identification  with  Tanut-Amon  ( Tnwt-imn ,  Tenotamon)  were  demon¬ 
strated  by  Steindorff  (“Die  Keilschriftliche  Wiedergabe  iEygyptischer 
Eigennamen,”  Beitrdge  zur  Assyriologie,  i,  356-359. 

2  The  Stela  of  Tanutamon.  Maspero,  Revue  archeologique,  1868, 
xvii,  329,  ff.,  and  Mariette,  Monuments  divers,  plates  7,  8.  Translated 
from  improved  and  newly  collated  text  by  Breasted,  Ancient  Records 
of  Egypt,  iv,  pp.  467,  ff. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURBANIPAL  435 

cloned  it  and  fell  back  to  Thebes.  The  As¬ 
syrian  army  then  moved  on  in  pursuit ,  and 
Thebes  was  taken  and  sacked.  The  plunder 
was  great  and  Ashurbanipal  was  glad  to  enu¬ 
merate  it  in  boastful  words:  “two  lofty  obelisks, 
made  of  gleaming  zahalu  stone,  whose  weight 
was  twenty-five  hundred  talents,  which  stood 
before  the  door  of  the  temple,  1  tore  from  their 
place  and  carried  away  to  Assyria.  Heavy 
booty  without  number  I  plundered  from 
Thebes.”1 

The  campaign  was  short  as  well  as  decisive. 
By  it  Ashurbanipal  had  greatly  strengthened 
the  Assyrian  hold  upon  Egypt,  but  he,  never¬ 
theless,  came  far  short  of  making  it  permanent. 
In  fact,  the  Assyrians  could  not  hope  to  hold 
Egypt  so  long  as  a  spark  of  national  feeling 
survived.  To  accomplish  so  great  a  feat,  one 
or  the  other,  and  perhaps  both,  of  two  ex¬ 
pedients  would  be  necessary.  The  first  was 
colonization  upon  a  scale  more  extensive  than 
had  ever  yet  been  attempted.  If  tens  of  thou¬ 
sands  of  native-born  Assyrians  could  have  been 
transported  over  distances  so  great  and  so 
exhausting  and  settled  in  the  country,  these 
might  gradually  have  permeated  it  with  new 
ideas  of  trade  and  commerce  so  thoroughly 
that  the  old  national  ideas  of  culture  and 
religious  devotion  would  have  given  way  to 

1  Rassam  Cylinder,  ii,  36,  37,  Jensen,  Keilinschrift.  Bill.,  ii,  pp.  168, 

169. 


436  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

a  pursuit  of  wealth.  By  this  means  national 
feeling,  and  with  it  desire  for  the  ancient  in¬ 
dependence,  would  have  slowly  burned  out. 
The  second  expedient  was  a  great  army  of 
occupation  well  distributed  over  the  whole 
country,  commanded  not  by  native  princes, 
but  by  Assyrians  of  undoubted  lo}^alty,  but, 
nevertheless,  frequently  changed  to  avoid  possi¬ 
ble  entanglements  in  local  intrigues  or  in¬ 
citements  to  overweening  personal  ambition. 
Ashurbanipal  appears  not  to  have  seriously  at¬ 
tempted  the  former  plan.  The  latter  was  tried 
on  a  small  scale,  but  as  soon  as  the  great  civil 
war  began,  which  was  even  now  brewing  in 
Babylonia,  the  troops  had  to  be  withdrawn. 
Necho  remained  a  faithful  vassal  to  his  death, 
but  his  son,  Psammeticus,  who  succeeded  him, 
declared  himself  independent  even  before  the 
year  660.  The  taking  of  Egypt  had  been 
the  most  brilliant  event  in  the  reign  of  Esar- 
haddon.  From  it  the  Assyrians  had  drawn 
great  treasure,  on  which  the  standing  army 
had  been  partially  maintained.  In  spite  of 
trials  so  great,  a  king  such  as  Sargon  or  Esar- 
haddon  would  probably  have  held  it,  but 
Ashurbanipal  was  cast  in  a  different  mold. 
It  was  the  first  great  loss  of  his  reign;  others 
less  startling  were  to  follow.  The  material 
decline  of  the  Assyrian  empire  had  begun. 

From  his  father  Ashurbanipal  had  also  in¬ 
herited  a  campaign  against  Tyre  as  he  had 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURBANIPAL 


437 


one  against  Egypt.  We  have  already  seen 
how  Esarhaddon  had  besieged  the  city  on 
the  land  side,  leaving  open  the  sea  approach. 
The  siege  was  maintained  steadily,  but  was 
long  without  result,  as  it  was  always  possible 
to  introduce  abundant  provisions  from  the  sea. 
But  slowly  the  cutting  off  of  the  land  approach 
choked  the  commerce  of  the  sea,  and  Tyre 
fell  by  degrees  into  dire  need.  At  last  Baal 
deemed  it  the  wiser  plan  to  yield,  probably 
soon  after  the  beginning  of  AshurbanipaPs  reign. 
The  manner  of  the  surrender  was  character¬ 
istic  of  all  the  previous  history  of  Tyre.  He 
would  buy  the  favor  and  pardon  of  the  new 
king.  As  a  token  of  his  entire  submission  to 
Assyrian  suzerainty  he  sent  one  of  his  daugh¬ 
ters  and  a  number  of  his  nieces  to  adorn  the 
harem  of  Ashurbanipal,  and  his  own  son, 
Yahi-melek,  to  be  reared  at  the  court,  prob¬ 
ably  with  the  idea  that  he  should  be  thoroughly 
educated  in  Assyrian  ideas.  Ashurbanipal  sent 
the  son  back,  but  retained  the  women  and 
the  presents  which  had  been  sent  with  them. 
The  fall  of  Tyre  is  described  as  the  third  cam¬ 
paign1  of  the  king,  but  the  city  must  have 
yielded  as  early  as  668,  since  we  find  Baal 
contributing  troops  to  the  expedition  against 
Egypt.2  At  the  same  time  Yakinlu,  king  of 

1  Rassam  Cylinder,  ii,  49-62,  Jensen,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  pp. 
169,  170. 

2  Rm.  3,  line  24,  S.  A.  Smith,  Die  Keilschrifttexte  Asurbanipals,  ii, 
pp.  26,  27. 


438  HI STOB Y  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


Arvad,  sent  his  daughter  to  the  harem  with 
gifts,  and  so  indicated  his  submission  to  the 
new  tyrant.  In  like  manner,  also,  Mukallu, 
a  prince  of  Tabal,  and  Sandasharme  of  Cicilia 
indicated  their  adherence  to  the  empire. 

In  close  connection  with  these  submissions 
the  historiographer  of  Ashurbanipal  narrates 
with  unction  a  curious  double  episode.  The 
first  part  of  it  represents  Gyges,  king  of  Lydia, 
in  far-off  Asia  Minor,  dangerously  pressed  by 
the  Cimmerians  and  dreaming  that  Ashur¬ 
banipal  could  and  would  save  him.  Forth¬ 
with  he  dispatched  an  embassy  to  the  great 
king  praying  his  assistance.  When  the  border 
of  Assyria  was  reached  the  leader  of  the  horse¬ 
men  was  greeted  with  the  Assyrian  question, 
“Who  then,  art  thou,  stranger,  thou  from 
whose  land  no  courier  has  yet  made  his  way?” 
Unable  to  speak  Assyrian,  the  ambassadors 
could  make  known  their  mission  only  by 
signs,  but  were  at  last  conducted  to  Nineveh. 
After  much  search  a  man  was  found  who 
could  unravel  the  mystery  and  interpret  the 
story  of  the  dream.1  Ashurbanipal  sent  no 
help  in  visible  form,  but  was  contented  with 
beseeching  Ashur  and  Ishtar  to  help  Gyges 
against  his  adversaries.  Thus  assisted,  Gyges 
attacked  the  on-moving  hordes,  gained  a  great 
victory,  and  sent  two  captured  chiefs  to  Assyria 

1  The  story  of  the  ambassador’s  visit  is  told  in  Cylinder  E,  1-12, 
G.  Smith,  History  of  Assurbanipal,  pp.  76,  77:  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii, 
pp.  172,  173. 


Horse’s  head.  Assyrian  plastic  art,  period  of 

Ashurbanipal. 

[Reproduced  from  C.  Bezold,  Nineve  und  Babylon , 
Leipzig,  1603.] 


' 

. 

•(ew  tyrant.  in  liki  manner,  alto  Mukallu, 

. 

]K  ,  ;:ii  ■  connection  with  these  sebimssions 
he  historic  rapiw  <>S  Ashurbanij  J  naneU'S 

i 

the  Cimi  lians  ami  c  n  ming  hat  Ashur- 

1o  fxii'tycf  fterit88*  .bssfl  s'aatbH 

•.laqittedwflaA.  •  ;4:  ■ 

km 

■  ,  ,  .  .  '  J.  ■  ■  hou. 

*  -  .  r*>j) 

: 


who 

< 

, 

‘ 

' 

victory  n  i<  o  vo  Cftptur8<i  ciiiciV  to  Assyria 

lT  •  st*-'  1  •  •  ior  i  >.  t  is  t  •  Cylinde'  i  ,  •*  *  — 

G.  Smith,  BixUrry  of  Asfiurbampai,  pp*  70,  77:  Keilvucnrift.  BM.,  ii. 


II — 438 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURBANIPAL 


439 


as  proof  of  the  work  wrought  by  the  gods  of 
Assyria.  There  needed  only  that  the  con¬ 
verse  should  be  proven,  and  the  king’s  faith 
in  his  gods  would  be  well  fortified.  The  oppor¬ 
tunity  for  this  demonstration  arose  a  little 
later  when  Psammeticus  of  Egypt  had  de¬ 
clared  his  independence.  Gyges  gave  him  sup¬ 
port,  and  so  broke  his  compact  of  friendship 
with  Assyria.  Ashurbanipal  prayed  again  to 
his  gods,  and  this  time  not  for,  but  against, 
the  faithless  Gyges;  whereupon  the  Cimmerians, 
whom  he  had  easily  conquered  before,  but 
were  now  led  by  Dugdamme  and  thoroughly 
disciplined,  fell  on  him  and  possessed  his  en¬ 
tire  land,  while  his  dead  bodv  was  cast  out 
in  the  way  before  them.  His  son,  who  in¬ 
herited  a  broken  kingdom,  asked  the  help  of 
the  Assyrians  and  their  permission  to  occupy 
his  heritage.1 

The  fourth  campaign  was  directed  against 
the  land  of  Man,  where  Akhsheri  was  king. 
The  circumstances  which  led  to  the  invasion 
are  not  clearly  set  forth,  but  there  had  prob¬ 
ably  been  a  rebellion  against  the  monotonous 
tribute.  The  land  had  undoubtedly  received 
many  new  inhabitants  through  the  Indo-Euro¬ 
pean  invasion,  and  these  were  not  likely  to 
bear  the  tribute  which  the  previous  inhab¬ 
itants  had  borne.  The  Assyrian  army  soon 

1  Rassam  Cylinder,  ii,  95-125,  Jensen,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  pp. 
172-177. 


440  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


reduced  the  province  to  subjection,  and  the 
rebellious  Akhsheri  was  numbered  among  the 
slain.  His  son,  Ualli,  succeeded  to  the  throne, 
and  upon  him  was  laid  a  heavier  tribute,  to 
be  paid  in  horses.1 

At  the  same  time  Ashurbanipal  made  a  raid 
upon  Biris-Khadri,  a  Median  prince,  and  upon 
Sarati  and  Parikhia,  sons  of  Gagi2,  prince  of 
Sakhi.  It  ended  with  the  taking  of  a  few 
fortified  cities  and  the  deportation  of  the 
inhabitants.3  By  such  raids  as  this  the  Medes 
were  being  taught  to  hate  the  Assyrians,  as 
the  west  had  long  since  learned  to  hate  them. 

Again  in  the  first  half  of  his  reign  had  Ashur¬ 
banipal  to  do  with  Elam.  For  a  long  time 
there  had  been  peace  between  the  two  coun¬ 
tries.  As  we  have  seen,  the  people  of  Elam 
had  laid  aside  the  old-time  hostility  to  the 
Assyrians  and  had  given  over  assisting  their 
enemies.  Khumban-Khaldash  had  not  received 
Merodach-baladan  when  he  fled  to  him  for 
refuge.  And,  as  was  still  more  remarkable, 
the  Assyrians  had  shown  great  friendship  and 
charity  toward  their  erstwhile  enemies.  When 
a  famine  arose  in  Elam,  Esarhaddon,  dis- 

1  Rassam  Cylinder,  ii,  126-iii,  26. 

2  Gagi  has  been  often  identified  with  Gog,  Ezek.  xxxviii,  2;  for  example, 
by  Schrader  Keilinschriften  unci  Geschichtsforschung,  p.  159,  note,  and 
Delitzsch,  Paradies,  p.  247,  but  this  is  hardly  probable.  An  identifica¬ 
tion  of  Gog  with  Gyges,  king  of  Lydia,  is  more  likely.  See  E.  Meyer, 
Geschichte  des  Alterthums,  i,  p.  558;  Sayce,  sub  voce,  Dictionary  of  the 
Bible,  ed.  Hastings,  ii,  p.  224. 

3  Cylinder  B,  iii,  102-iv,  14,  Jensen,  op.  cit ..  pp.  178-181. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURBANIPAL 


441 


playing  again  his  merciful  side,  suffered  the 
Elamites  who  were  in  hunger  to  seek  refuge 
in  Babylonian  territory  and  permitted  the 
export  of  grain  to  others  who  remained  in 
Elam.  When  the  famine  was  past  he  gave  a 
final  and  remarkable  proof  of  his  friendly  pur¬ 
poses  by  arranging  for  the  return  to  Elam  of 
the  temporary  exiles.  Such  peace  as  this  was 
too  good  for  long  continuance,  and  now  was 
suddenly  and  rudely  broken.  We  are  not 
informed  exactly  as  to  the  causes  which  in¬ 
duced  Urtaki,  king  of  Elam,  to  break  the 
compact  of  friendship  by  a  hostile  invasion 
of  Babylonia.  Ashurbanipal  did  not  at  once 
repel  the  invaders,  but  delayed  until  they  had 
reached  Babylon  itself,  when  he  drove  them 
not  only  from  Babylon,  but  also  over  the 
borders  into  Elam.1  Urtaki  soon  after  died, 
and  as  a  natural  Oriental  consequence  there 
were  disturbances  in  his  kingdom  immediately 
afterward.  His  brother,  Teumman,  seized  the 
throne,  dispossessing  both  a  son  of  Urtaki 
and  another  of  the  former  king,  Khumban- 
Khaldash.  These  he  tried  to  assassinate,  but 
they,  with  seventy  relatives,  made  their  way 
to  the  court  of  Ashurbanipal,  who  gave 
them  refuge  and  refused  to  deliver  them  up 
when  demanded  by  Teumman.  Teumman  cer¬ 
tainly  had  boldness  fortified  twice  over,  for 
he  entered  northern  Babylonia  and  threatened 


1  Cylinder  B.  iv.  15-83,  Jensen,  oj).  cit.,  pp.  244  -247. 


442  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


the  country  to  induce  Ashurbanipal  to  deliver 
up  the  fugitives.  Ashurbanipal,  who  was  now 
celebrating  some  religious  festivals  in  Assyria, 
instead  of  directly  attacking  and  repulsing  the 
invader,  sent  an  army  to  Durilu,  the  old  out¬ 
post  against  Elam.  This  move  cut  off  the 
direct  retreat  of  Teumman  and  compelled  him 
to  return  to  his  capital,  Susa,  by  a  road  below 
the  river  Ulai  (modern  Karun).  The  Assyrian 
army  then  pursued,  and  overtaking  him  before 
Susa,  administered  a  telling  defeat.  Teumman 
was  taken  soon  afterward  and  killed.  The 
remaining  districts  of  Elam  then  capitulated, 
and  Ashurbanipal  made  Khumbanigash  II, 
one  of  the  fugitives  to  his  court,  king;  while 
his  brother  Tammaritu  was  set  over  one  of 
the  Assyrian  provinces. 

During  the  progress  of  these  two  campaigns 
the  tribe  of  Gambuli  was  in  a  state  of  insur¬ 
rection.  Bel-iqisha  was  dead,  and  his  sons, 
Dunanu  and  Samgunu,  had  succeeded  him. 
These  as  well  as  Nabu-naid  and  Bel-etri,  sons 
of  Nabu-shum-eresh,  had  not  given  in  their 
allegiance  to  Assyria.  On  the  return  from 
Elam  the  victorious  Assyrian  army  marched 
through  their  land  and  destroyed  Shapi-Bel, 
the  capital  city  of  the  Gambuli.  The  four 
chiefs  were  carried  in  chains  to  Nineveh. 

This  series  of  campaigns  against  Egypt,  the 
west,  and  the  east  filled  about  fifteen  years 
of  the  reign  of  Ashurbanipal.  They  are  a  dole- 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURBANIPAL 


443 


ful  catalogue  of  plundering  raids  and  of  attempts 
to  crush  frequent  rebellions.  Ashurbanipal 
was  holding  with  extreme  difficulty  the  empire 
which  his  fathers  had  built  up.  There  were 
ominous  cracks  in  the  structure,  for  Egypt 
was  likely  to  fall  away  at  any  time,  while 
the  Medes  were  already  beginning  to  appre¬ 
ciate  their  own  strength  and  to  understand  the 
weakness  of  Assyria.  In  no  part  of  his  great 
borders  had  Ashurbanipal  made  any  important 
gain  to  Assyrian  territory.  He  had  introduced 
no  new  policy,  and  was  now  barely  holding 
his  own,  surrounded  by  dangers  which  menaced 
the  continuance  of  the  empire. 

A  danger  greater  than  any  other  was  now 
ready  to  come  to  the  surface.  During  all 
these  years  there  had  been  an  external  peace 
and  calm  in  Babylonia.  Shamash-shum-ukin 
had  been  acknowledged  as  king,  in  accordance 
with  his  father’s  will,  and  in  his  hands  were 
now  the  internal  affairs  of  Babylonia.  This 
arrangement  in  the  very  nature  of  things 
could  not  endure,  for  the  temper  of  the  Baby¬ 
lonian  people  was  utterly  foreign  to  it.  It 
might  from  certain  points  of  view  appear  like 
an  almost  ideal  arrangement.  It  gave  freedom 
in  all  matters  of  local  concern,  and  made  it 
possible  for  the  Babylonians  to  devote  them¬ 
selves  to  art,  literature,  and  science,  as  they 
had  always  desired.  But  the  Babylonian  people 
could  not  be  brought  to  any  such  devotion 


444  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


of  their  talents.  They  remembered  the  days 
of  old  when  theirs  was  the  world’s  chief  city, 
and  when  the  most  sacred  and  solemn  rites 
of  religion  were  closely  knit  into  the  frame¬ 
work  of  their  civil  administration.  How  changed 
was  all  this!  Their  present  ruler  was  the  son 
of  an  Assyrian  king,  and,  in  the  opinion  of 
their  priesthood,  was  no  properly  sanctified 
king  at  all.  He  was  indeed  no  king  for  another 
reason.  Ashurbanipal  was  a  man  of  such  in¬ 
tense  personality,  of  such  overweening  pride, 
that  there  could  be  no  king  beside  him.  Sham- 
ash-shum-ukin  could  only  be  an  underlord  in 
charge  of  the  internal  affairs  of  a  province. 
He  was  not  paying  tribute  as  similar  princes 
in  other  provinces,  but  in  every  other  par¬ 
ticular  his  rule  was  that  of  a  petty  prince. 
This  division  of  responsibilities  between  the 
two  brothers  had  gone  on  well  for  fifteen  years. 
There  had  been  unusual  peace  and  prosperity 
in  Babylonia.  There  was  entire  freedom  in 
Assyria  for  the  continuance  of  war  upon  rebels, 
and  there  was  no  reason  why  the  arrangement 
should  not  be  continued  as  far  as  Assyria  was 
concerned.  Let  only  Shamash-shum-ukin  con¬ 
tinue  to  play  the  lesser  part  and  all  would  be  well. 

But  Shamash-shum-ukin  was  ambitious.! 

1  The  inscriptions  belonging  to  the  reign  of  Shamash-shum-ukin  have 
been  published,  translated,  and  explained  in  a  masterly  manner  in 
C.  F.  Lehmann,  Shamashshumukm,  Konig  von  Babylon,  inschriftliches 
Material  uber  den  Beginn  seiner  Regierung,  grossentheils  zum  ersten 
Male  herausgegeben,  iibersetzt  und  erldutert.  Leipzig,  1892. 


Baked  clay  ten-sided  prism  of  Ashurbanipal  (668- 
625  B.  C.),  king  of  Assyria.  British  Museum. 

[From  A  Guide  to  the  Babylonian  and  Assyrian 
Antiquities.  2d  edition,  1908.  By  permission  of 
the  Trustees  of  the  British  Museum.] 


1 44  HI  F  >RY  OF.  B  \B  YLON I A  ANT)  ASSY  RIA 


of  nembered  the  da 

of  o;  .  w  ien  eirs  was  the  world's  chief  city, 

"  .  .  i»  •  .  '  ■"  d  nr  '  -  0;  4"in  :  t f  c  - 

w  r  -1  u;loxi  were  closely  knit.' into  the  frarae- 
v.  •: >rk  of  tiieir  civil  administration.  How  changed 
was  all  this!  Their  present  ruler  was  the  son 
of  an  Assyrian  king,  and,  in  the  opinion  of 

king  at  all  He  was  Indeed  no  king  for  another 
reason.  A  shurbanipal  was  a  man  of  such  in- 


:■  t  ■  ’>■  HI  2  . 


. 


had  been  unusual  prosperity 

h  \  Ionia.  -  e  nn  entire  freedom  in 


mo  ■  •  reason  wiry  the  arrangement 

c*<  no-  ■  \y  »  hamas r-shum-ukln  con- 

lr  rpart  and  all  would  be  well. 

:  hanmsh-shum-ukin  was  ambit* 


'i  h  i;  »  b  lOi.-HT  to  the' reign  of  Sharnash  hu:  :i-u-ua  have 

b  i’i  t  ul  i  traiv  hi  l.  q<;  «  ■  i >i;  •  i :  ed  in  a  n  3 1  r  1  •  n  aimer  in 
C.  F.  L  o  Skat  aati*!i  ;/ihk  'nt  Konig  von  Babylon,  in  hr O'U  dies 
Mat'  aliii  d  Begi  seine  Hegi  rung,  ussoitheils  Z"m  trsttr. 
A' ale  hern  tgeydtn,  liber-ietft  urn  <  -lerf.  T^eipzig,  1S92. 


<#*mr** 


%«#**! 


II — 444 


THE  REIGN  OP  ASHURBANIPAL  445 

There  was  king's  blood  in  him  no  less  than  in 
his  elder  brother,  and  he  aspired  to  be  the 
independent  king  of  an  independent  kingdom. 
He  saw  that  this  could  never  be  attained  by 
Babylonia  acting  alone.  He  must  have  aid 
in  some  form  from  other  states,  and  he  had 
nothing  to  offer  for  their  assistance.  He  be¬ 
gan  plotting  such  a  series  of  rebellions  against 
Assyria  as  would  weaken  the  empire  and 
hence  leave  him  free  from  all  danger  of  attack. 
The  plan  had  elements  of  possible  success. 
He  could  not  get  succor  in  a  bold  campaign 
against  his  brother  unless  he  could  offer  gold 
or  territory  in  return  for  the  aid  which  he 
received.  But  by  this  method  he  might  stir 
up  Assyrian  provinces  to  rebel,  declaring  that 
so  they  might  easily  win  their  independence. 
If  a  sufficient  number  of  these  rebellions  could 
be  started  at  one  time,  Assyria  could  not 
possibly  put  them  down.  Beaten  on  every 
side,  Ashurbanipal  must  inevitably  permit  Sham- 
ash-shum-ukin  to  set  up  an  independent  king¬ 
dom.  The  aid  received  from  the  other  states 
through  their  rebellions  would  be  indirect  only, 
and  they  would  have  compensation  enough  in 
their  own  freedom  from  the  oppressor. 

The  weakness  of  the  plan,  however,  far 
exceeded  its  strength.  It  was,  in  the  first 
place,  a  plan  that  could  not  be  carried  on  in 
secret,  and  secrecy  alone  could  give  it  a  chance 
of  success.  He  might  easily  approach  a  people 


446  HISTOBY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYEIA 


who  thought  that  their  present  interests  were 
rather  with  Assyria,  and  would  therefore 
promptly  reveal  the  plot.  Once  revealed,  the 
Assyrians  might  readily  evidence  once  more 
their  virtue  of  promptness  and  overwhelm  the 
traitorous  Babylonians,  as  they  had  done  be¬ 
fore  in  the  days  of  Merodach-baladan.  Still 
further  was  the  plan  weak  in  that  it  took  no 
account  of  the  consequences  which  might  fol¬ 
low  the  breaking  up  of  the  Assyrian  empire. 
Assyria  had  more  than  once  saved  Babylonia 
from  Aramaeans  or  Chaldeans  who  threatened 
to  engulf  the  whole  land.  If  the  martial  arm 
was  now  broken,  Babylonia  would  become  the 
instant  prey  of  the  Chaldeans.  It  is  difficult 
to  believe  that  a  plot  so  fraught  with  danger¬ 
ous  consequences,  involving  the  possible  ruin 
of  the  land,  could  have  been  hatched  in  a  sane 
mind.  It  is  charitable  to  suppose  that  Shamash- 
shum-ukin  had  been  utterly  carried  away  by 
ambition  and  by  national  pride,  and  had  not 
fully  weighed  the  dangers  which  he  was  call¬ 
ing  into  action. 

The  states  which  he  decided  to  attempt  to 
draw  into  rebellion  almost  completely  hemmed 
in  Assyria.  The  first  of  them  was  Accad,  the 
portion  of  Babylonia,  outside  of  Babylon,  which 
still  remained  under  Assyrian  rule.  The  sec¬ 
ond  was  the  Chaldean  state  in  the  far  south 
— the  old  enemy  not  merely  of  Assyria,  but 
also  of  Babylonia — and  below  this  also  the 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURBANIPAL 


447 


country  of  the  Sea  Lands.  To  these  were 
added  the  Aramaean  communities  in  Baby¬ 
lonia,  Elam,  and  Gutium,  under  which  last 
was  now  comprised  a  great  stretch  of  territory 
above  the  Mesopotamian  valley,  populated  by 
the  Indo-Europeans  who  had  entered  it  in 
the  great  migration.  Finally  he  roused  all 
the  west  land,  Syria,  Palestine,  and  Melukhkha. 
Egypt  was  already  independent,  pursuing  its 
own  way  without  Assyrian  let  or  hindrance, 
and  therefore  could  not  be  drawn  into  any 
such  confederation. 

As  might  have  been  expected  in  the  begin¬ 
ning,  Ashurbanipal  had  knowledge  of  the 
plot  long  before  it  was  ready  for  execution. 
He  did  not,  however,  take  steps  for  its  destruc¬ 
tion  as  promptly  as  might  have  been  expected. 
Whether  he  was  only  playing  a  part  or  did  in 
reality  so  feel,  he  at  least  spent  many  words 
in  describing  his  brother’s  faithlessness  as  a 
breach  of  gratitude.  He  claims  to  have  done 
all  manner  of  good  deeds  for  him,  and  even 
declares  that  it  was  he  who  gave  him  the 
throne,  though  we  have  already  seen  that 
this  act  of  folly  was  really  done  by  Esarhaddon. 
His  words  have  an  air  of  solemn  sincerity, 
and  are  characteristic  of  the  general  tenor  of 
the  records  of  his  reign:  “In  those  days  Sham- 
ash-shum-ukin,  a  faithless  brother,  to  whom  I 
had  done  good,  whom  I  had  established  in  the 
kingship  over  Babylon,  for  whom  .  .  .  the  in- 


448  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


signia  of  royalty  I  had  made  and  presented; 
warriors,  horses,  chariots  had  I  brought  to¬ 
gether  and  placed  in  his  hands;  cities,  fields, 
gardens,  and  they  who  dwelt  in  them  .  .  .  had 
I  given  him.  But  he  forgot  the  grace  I  had 
wrought  for  him.  .  .  A1  It  is  a  curious  plaint 
for  a  king.  It  might  have  been  expected  that 
Ashurbanipal  would  have  made  even  the  sus¬ 
picion  of  a  plot  excuse  sufficient  for  an  inva¬ 
sion  of  Babylonia  and  a  severe  castigation  of 
his  brother.  He  waited,  however,  until  the 
breach  of  peace  should  come  from  the  brother, 
hoping  thereby,  probably,  to  justify  himself 
to  the  Babylonians  as  the  maker  of  peace,  and 
not  its  breaker,  when  the  civil  war  was  over. 

Shamash-shum-ukin  struck  the  first  blow, 
being  probably  driven  to  it  by  the  discovery 
of  the  plot.  He  first  seized  Ur  and  Uruk, 
which  had  Assyrian  governors  and  were  directly 
under  the  control  of  Ashurbanipal.  He  assumed 
the  titles  king  of  Sumer  and  Accad  and  king 
of  Amnanu.  He  added  to  this  high-handed 
breach  of  allegiance  a  notice  to  his  brother 
that  he  must  no  longer  offer  in  Babylon  and 
Borsippa  the  annual  sacrifices  which  he  had 
been  giving  as  the  suzerain  of  Babylon.  He 
must  not  offer  in  Sippar  to  the  god  Shamash, 
nor  in  Kutha  to  the  god  Nergal.  These  cities 
were  then  seized,  as  Ur  and  Uruk  had  been, 
and  fortified.  Still  Ashurbanipal  did  not  at- 


1  Rassam  Cylinder,  col.  iii,  70-78,  Jensen,  op.  cit.,  pp.  182-185. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURRANIPAL 


tack,  waiting  now  until  he  should  receive  from 
the  gods  some  favorable  omen.  The  omen 
came  in  the  night,  when  it  was  far  spent.  He 
saw  in  a  dream  the  moon  bearing  an  inscrip¬ 
tion  wherein  was  threatened  all  manner  of 
famine,  wrath,  and  death  against  anyone  who 
should  plot  against  Ashurbanipal.  He  need 
no  longer  delay.  The  army  is  set  in  motion 
and  the  border  crossed.  Shamash-shum-ukin 
dare  not  meet  that  army  in  open  battle;  his 
only  hope  was  successful  defense  in  the  siege 
which  soon  must  come.  He  had  doubtless 
hoped  for  aid  from  some  of  his  fellow-con¬ 
spirators,  but  all  failed  him  but  one.  This 
was  Khumbanigash,  king  of  Elam,  who  was 
wTon  over  by  a  present.  His  act  was  an  act 
of  ingratitude  as  well  as  of  hostility,  for  he 
owed  his  throne  to  Ashurbanipahs  appoint¬ 
ment.  The  absence  of  Khumbanigash  in 
Babylonia  gave  the  favorable  opportunity  for 
a  rebellion  in  Elam,  in  which  his  family  was 
driven  out  and  his  brother,  Tammaritu,  seized 
the  throne.  This  was  a  favorable  move  for 
Assyria,  as  it  compelled  the  withdrawal  from 
Babylonia  of  the  Elamite  troops.  Tammaritu, 
however,  was  also  no  friend  of  Assyria,  and 
desired  rather  to  make  himself  an  ally  of  Baby¬ 
lonia.  As  soon,  therefore,  as  he  felt  himself 
secure  he  likewise  sent  help  to  Shamash-shum- 
ukin.1  At  once  the  old  swing  of  the  pendulum 


1  Rassam  Cylinder,  iv,  3-7,  Jensen,  op.  cit.,  pp.  188,  189. 


450  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

began  in  Elam.  Another  rebellion  broke  out, 
Tammaritu  was  driven  from  the  country,  and 
Indabigash  became  king  of  Elam.1  Tammaritu, 
as  Teumman  before  him,  sought  refuge  in 
Assyria,  and  Indabigash  refused  to  have  any 
share  in  the  insurrection  of  Shamash-shum-ukin. 
The  quickness  with  which  these  two  Elamite 
rebellions  had  followed  each  other,  and  the 
manner  in  which  they  had  finally  played  into 
the  hands  of  Ashurbanipal,  induce  us  to 
believe  that  he  was  the  real  cause  of  the  second 
at  least,  if  not  also  of  the  first. 

The  withdrawal  of  the  Elamite  support  left 
Shamash-shum-ukin  in  a  sorry  plight.  He  had, 
indeed,  a  few  troops  sent  from  Arabia,  but 
these  were  of  slight  weight.  From  the  west 
there  was  no  help  at  all,  nor  did  the  Aramaeans 
of  Babylonia  or  the  Chaldeans  give  aid.  Sham¬ 
ash-shum-ukin  held  out  as  long  as  possible 
when  besieged.  At  last  he  was  conquered  by 
hunger  and  disease.  So  awful  was  the  suffering 
in  Babylon  that  human  flesh  was  used  for 
food.  When  despair  depressed  all  minds  Sham¬ 
ash-shum-ukin  committed  suicide  by  causing 
himself  to  be  burned2  as  a  sacrifice  to  the 
people  who  had  suffered  so  much  for  his  folly. 
When  the  gates  were  opened  and  Ashurbanipal 
entered  the  rebellious  cities  there  was  enacted 
an  orgy  of  wrath  and  ferocity.  Soldiers  who 


1  Ibid.,  col.  iv,  11. 

2  Rassam  Cylinder,  iv,  50-53,  Jensen,  op.  cit.,  pp.  190,  191. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURBANIPAL 


451 


had  fought  under  the  orders  of  Shamash-shum- 
ukin  were  adjudged  to  have  spoken  against 
Ashur  and  the  great  king  of  Assyria  whom  he 
had  set  up.  Their  tongues  were  torn  from 
their  mouths,  and  the  bodies  of  their  fellows 
who  had  died  in  the  siege  were  cast  out,  to  be 
devoured  by  wild  beasts  and  carrion-eating 
birds.  To  supply  the  places  of  those  in  Baby¬ 
lon  who  were  given  over  to  horrible  deaths  men 
were  brought  from  Kutlia  and  Sippar. 

Ashurbanipal  had  pacified  the  land  of  Baby¬ 
lonia  as  his  ancestors  would  have  done;  he 
had  given  to  it  the  silence  of  death.  There 
remained  only  that  he  should  devise  now  some 
method  by  which  it  could  be  governed.  He 
decided  to  have  no  more  government  which 
might  tend  to  a  rupture  between  the  two 
kingdoms,  and  so  had  himself  proclaimed  king 
under  the  name  of  Kanclalanu,1  adopting  for 
Babylonia  a  different  name,  as  Tiglathpileser 
IV  and  Shalmaneser  V  had  done  before  him. 
The  first  year  of  his  reign  in  Babylonia,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  Canon  of  Ptolemy,  was  647  B.  C.2 

As  soon  as  these  matters  were  arranged  he 
invaded  the  south  and  punished  the  Chaldeans, 

1  See  Schrader,  “Kineladan  und  Asurbanipal,”  Zeitschrift  fur  Kcil - 
schriftforschung,  i,  pp.  222-232;  Pinches,  “Some  Recent  Discoveries,” 
Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology,  v,  p.  6  (1882-83).  Pro¬ 
fessor  Clay  ( Babylonian  Expedition  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  vol. 
viii,  pt.  1,  pp.  6-10)  has  brought  forward  all  the  evidence  now  available 
to  show  that  Kandalanu  and  Ashurbanipal  were  not  the  same  person. 
After  full  consideration  it  still  seems  to  me  that  the  identification  is,  on 
the  whole,  the  better  solution. 

2  See  above,  vol.  i,  p.  514. 


452  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


the  Aramaeans,  and  the  people  of  the  Sea 
Lands  who  had  given  in  their  pledge  to  Sham- 
ash-shum-ukin  to  join  in  a  general  rebellion 
against  Assyria.  The  yoke  of  bondage  was 
put  upon  them,  Assyrian  governors  set  over 
them,  and  they  were  commanded  to  pay  a 
regular  annual  tribute.  In  this  Ashurbanipal 
gained  a  distinct  advantage,  for  the  territory 
was  now  more  fully  in  his  hands  than  it  had 
been  since  the  beginning  of  his  reign.1 

Now  that  all  Babylonia  as  far  south  as  the 
Persian  Gulf  was  entirely  in  a  state  of  peace 
and  no  more  uprisings  were  to  be  feared,  Ashur¬ 
banipal  determined  likewise  to  punish  Elam 
for  having  twice  assisted  the  Babylonians  in 
their  rebellion.  It  is  true  that  Indabigash  had 
kept  the  peace  until  now  with  Assyria,  but 
the  country  must  suffer  for  the  madness  of  its 
former  kings.  Another  rebellion  had  broken 
out  in  Elam  in  which  Indabigash  had  fallen 
and  in  his  place  Khumban-Khaldash  III,  son 
of  Attumetu,  had  become  king.  There  is  no 
certain  proof  that  this  Attumetu  was  the  same 
person  as  he  who  led  a  part  of  the  army 
which  Khumbanigash  had  sent  to  the  assist¬ 
ance  of  Shamash-shum-ukin,  but  the  names  are 
the  same  and  the  time  fits  the  identity.  If 
they  are  the  same,  we  may  perhaps  see  in 
Khumban-Khaldash  a  man  who  was  made 
king  by  the  party  which  sympathized  with 


1  Rassam  Cylinder,  iv,  97-109,  Jensen,  op.  cit.,  pp.  194,  195. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURBANIPAL 


453 


the  Babylonians,  and  was  therefore  hostile  to 
Indabigash,  who  had  been  pro- Assyrian  in 
his  acts,  until  just  before  the  end  of  his  reign. 
He  had  then  offended  Ashurbanipal  by  harbor¬ 
ing  Nabu-bel-shume,  a  descendant  of  Merodach- 
baladan.  The  latter  was  in  the  true  line  of 
his  family  in  giving  much  trouble  to  the  Assy¬ 
rians.  He  had  received  from  Ashurbanipal  some 
Assyrian  troops  to  protect  his  country — the 
Sea  Lands — from  Elamite  invasion  during  the 
war  with  Shamash-shum-ukin.  Nabu-bel-shume 
had  at  first  played  the  part  of  a  devoted  friend 
of  Assyria,  and  at  the  same  time  had  laid  his 
plans  to  destroy  the  faithfulness  of  his  As¬ 
syrian  guard,  win  them  over  to  himself,  and 
with  this  added  force  prepare  to  seize  what 
advantage  he  could  when  Shamash-shum-ukin 
won  his  independence.  The  issue  did  not 
fall  out  that  way,  and  he  was  compelled  to 
flee  his  country  and  seek  refuge  in  Elam, 
whither  Alerodach-baladan  had  fled  before  him. 

Before  the  death  of  Indabigash  Ashurbanipal 
had  demanded  of  him  the  surrender  of  the 
fugitive  Nabu-bel-shume  and  his  renegade  As¬ 
syrians.  Indabigash  refused,  and  Ashurbanipal 
threatened  war.  Before  he  reached  Elam  with 
his  armies  Indabigash  was  dead  and  Khumban- 
Khaldash  was  on  the  throne.1  With  him  the  case 
was  no  better.  If  he  was  not  actually  made 
king,  because  of  his  hostility  to  Assyria,  as 


1  Cylinder  B,  vii,  72-87,  and  C,  88-115,  Jensen,  op.  cit pp.  266-269. 


454  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


suggested  above,  he  was  in  any  case  as  un¬ 
friendly  as  the  anti-Assyrian  party  could  desire. 
In  spite,  therefore,  of  the  change  of  rulers 
in  Elam  Ashurbanipal  pressed  on  and  took 
Bit-Imbi,  a  fortification  on  the  borders.  Khum- 
ban-Khaldash  was  too  new  to  the  throne  to 
be  able  to  turn  attention  to  an  invasion,  and 
needed  his  strength  to  ward  off  another  possible 
insurrection  at  home,  in  which  he  might  lose 
his  life,  as  had  his  predecessors.  He  therefore 
forsook  his  chief  city,  Madaktu,  and  fled  into 
the  mountains,  to  a  place  known  as  Dur- 
Undasi,  before  which  flowed  the  river  Ididi 
(probably  the  Disful).  The  river  formed  a 
natural  defense,  and  here  Khumban-Khaldash 
fortified  himself  as  best  he  might.  Ashurbanipal 
followed,  taking  the  cities  one  by  one  as  he 
went,  that  no  dangers  might  be  left  in  the 
rear.  At  last  Madaktu  fell,  and  with  the 
other  cities  between  it  and  the  Ididi  was  thrown 
down  and  burned.  When  the  Ididi  was  reached 
the  river  was  at  flood,  and  there  was  a  strong 
reluctance  in  the  army  to  attempt  it.  Their 
fears  were  overcome  by  a  dream  granted  to 
the  whole  army,  in  which  Ishtar  of  Arbela 
spoke  and  said,  “I  go  before  Ashurbanipal, 
the  king,  whom  mine  hands  have  created.” 
It  is  interesting  to  observe  how  frequently 
omens,  visions,  and  dreams  figure  in  the  records 
of  this  latter-day  Assyrian  king,  and  how 
very  infrequent  they  are  before  his  day.  Thus 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURBANIPAL 


455 


encouraged,  the  troops  crossed  and  Dur-Undasi 
was  taken,  but  Khumban-Khaldash  escaped 
into  the  mountains.  Thereupon  the  whole 
land  was  devastated.  Susa,  the  ancient  cap¬ 
ital,  was  taken,  and  in  its  palace  Ashurbanipal 
began  a  work  of  pillage  which  it  would  be 
difficult  to  parallel  in  all  the  earlier  records. 
From  the  treasuries  were  brought  forth  the 
gold  and  silver  which  the  kings  of  Elam,  fol¬ 
lowing  Assyrian  exemplars,  had  plundered  in 
raids  into  Babylonia  and  elsewhere.  Precious 
stones  and  costly  woolen  stuffs,  chariots  and 
wagons,  horses  and  animals  of  various  kinds, 
were  sent  away  to  Assyria.  The  temple, 
honored  and  endowed  for  ages,  was  broken 
open  and  the  gods  and  goddesses  with  all  their 
treasures  were  added  to  the  moving  mass  of 
plunder.  Thirty-two  statues  of  kings  wrought 
in  gold,  silver,  and  copper  were  carried  away 
to  Assyria  to  be  added  to  the  glories  of  the 
great  conquest.  Then  the  mausoleum  of  the 
kings  was  violated  in  order  that  even  the 
bones  of  dead  monarchs  who  vexed  Assyria 
might  be  carried  into  the  land  which  they  had 
hated.  In  the  end,  when  all  that  might  add 
wealth  to  Assyria  had  been  taken  away,  the 
entire  land  was  left  a  smoking  ruin,  from  which, 
in  the  very  phrases  of  the  ruthless  destroyer, 
had  been  taken  away  “the  voice  of  men,  the 
tread  of  cattle  and  sheep,  and  the  sound  of 
happy  music. ”  Such  is  the  record  of  a  cam- 


456  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


paign  led  by  a  civilized  monarch,  who  prided 
himself  on  his  love  of  learning.  The  savagery 
of  Assyria  was  not  dead,  but  in  full  vigor; 
dormant  at  times  it  had  been,  and  the  acts 
of  some  kings  had  seemed  to  promise  amend¬ 
ment  and  a  serious  desire  to  build  up  rather 
than  to  destroy.  These  purposes  were  more 
clearly  shown  in  Tiglathpileser  IV  and  in 
Esarhaddon  than  in  any  other  kings,  but  even 
they  are  limited  by  their  racial  instincts.  In 
AshurbanipaFs  campaign  the  worst  elements 
had  again  come  to  the  surface.1 

It  is  difficult  to  see  how  any  national  life 
could  survive  a  ruin  such  as  this,  but  Elam 
was  not  yet  quite  dead.  Khumban-Khaldash  re¬ 
turned  to  Madaktu  when  the  Assyrians  had 
withdrawn,  and  sat  down  amid  the  ruins. 
To  the  last  he  remained  faithful  to  Nabu- 
bel-shume,  who  had  continued  with  him.  Learn¬ 
ing  that  they  were  together,  Ashurbanipal  sent 
an  embassy  to  demand  his  surrender.  Nabu- 
bel-shume,  thus  hounded  to  death,  and  looking 
over  a  land  which  had  been  ruined  at  least 
partly  for  his  sake,  ordered  his  armor-bearer 
to  run  him  through.  Worn  out  with  fruitless 
opposition,  Khumban-Khaldash  sent  the  body 
of  the  dead  man  and  the  head  of  the  armor- 
bearer  who  had  slain  him  to  Ashurbanipal. 
Again  the  brutality  of  the  man  was  shown. 

1  For  the  history  of  the  campaign  see  Rassam  Cylinder,  v,  63-vii, 
81,  Jensen,  op.  cit.,  pp.  198-215,  and  compare  Billerbeck,  Susa,  pp. 
112-118. 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURBANIPAL  457 

He  cut  off  the  head  from  the  dead  body  and 
suspended  it  about  the  neck  of  one  of  Shamash- 
shum-ukirks  followers,  and  commanded  that 
the  poor  body  should  not  receive  even  the 
honor  of  a  burial.1 

In  the  western  part  of  Elam  Pa’e  had  at¬ 
tempted  to  gain  a  position  and  set  up  a  new 
kingdom,  to  control  a  part  of  the  now  ruined 
land.  But  an  army  dispatched  against  him 
brought  him  quickly  to  his  senses.  He  came 
to  Assyria  and  offered  his  allegiance  and  sub¬ 
mission  to  Ashurbanipal.  Soon  afterward 
Khumban-Khaldash  III  lost  the  throne  and 
was  captured  by  the  Assyrians. 

So  ended  the  dealings  of  King  Ashurbanipal 
with  the  neighboring  states,  whose  civilization 
was  at  least  as  old  as  that  of  Assyria,  and 
whose  treatment  of  other  nations  was  not 
so  bad.  He  did  not  attempt  to  supply  the 
land  with  a  new  government  and  with  the 
blessings  of  good  administration,  as  Tiglath- 
pileser  IV  would  have  done.  He  was  content 
to  have  deprived  it  of  all  possible  opportunity 
of  interfering  with  his  own  plans  by  further 
alliance  with  rebels  in  Babylonia.  The  policy 
was  singularly  deficient  in  farsightedness;  it 
is  indeed  to  be  properly  characterized  as  folly. 
A  castigation  of  Elam  may  have  been  necessary 
from  the  Assyrian  point  of  view,  but  its  ob- 


1  Rassam  Cylinder,  vii,  38-41.  The  sense  of  the  passage  is  incor¬ 
rectly  given  in  Jensen’s  excellent  translation  in  Keilinschrift.  Bibl., 
ii,  p.  213.  Compare  Meissner  in  the  Zeitxchrift  fur  Asxyrioloijte,  x,  83. 


458  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


literation  was  stupidity.  It  formed  a  good 
buffer  state  against  the  Indo-European  popula¬ 
tion  of  Media,  and  should  have  been  made 
an  ally  against  the  new  power  which  must 
soon  become  an  important  factor  in  the  politics 
of  western  Asia.  Instead  of  this  Ashurbanipal 
had  only  opened  a  way  over  which  the  destroy¬ 
ers  might  march  when  their  hour  should  come. 

In  close  connection  with  the  Elamite  cam¬ 
paigns,  and  perhaps  at  the  same  time,  Ashur¬ 
banipal  undertook  the  punishment  of  the  Ara¬ 
bians  for  the  assistance,  direct  and  indirect, 
which  they  had  given  to  Shamash-shum-ukin. 
In  the  extreme  northern  part  of  the  Arabian 
peninsula  was  the  kingdom  of  Aribi,  which 
has  often  before  appeared  in  the  Assyrian 
story.  Yauta,  son  of  Hazael,  who  ruled  in  it 
along  with  Queen  Adiya,  had  doubly  aided 
Shamash-shum-ukin.  He  had,  according  to 
compact,  seized  an  entire  independence  for  his 
little  kingdom,  and  with  that  had  also  cap¬ 
tured  a  number  of  localities  in  Arabia,  Edom, 
Yabrud,  Beth-Ammon,  the  Hauran,  Moab, 
Sa’arri,  Khargi,  and  Subiti.1  In  these  places 
he  had  settled  some  of  his  Arabic  hordes  who 
were  clamoring  for  space  for  expansion  beyond 
his  own  narrow  borders.  This  movement  was 
an  indirect  aid  to  Shamash-shum-ukin  of  the 
greatest  value,  and  if  similar  movements  had 
taken  place  elsewhere  as  planned,  the  empire 


1  Probably  Zobah,  2  Sam.  x,  6,  8;  1  Kings  xi,  23,  etc. 


THE  RET  ON  OF  ASHURBAOTPAL 


459 


must  have  fallen  to  pieces  under  the  combined 
assault.  Furthermore,  Yauta  had  rendered 
direct  help  of  first-rate  importance  by  sending 
an  army  of  Kedarenes  (Assyrian,  Ivadri  or 
Ividri)  under  the  command  of  two  sheikhs, 
Abiyate  and  Ayamu.  These  Kedarenes  were 
driven  from  Babylonia,  and  at  least  one  of 
their  leaders  was  taken.  The  Arabian  settlers 
were  in  every  case  overwhelmed  by  the  local 
Assyrian  troops.  The  help  had  indeed  availed 
little  for  Shamash-shum-ukin,  but  only  because 
there  had  been  no  help  from  other  points  whence 
it  had  been  expected.  Yauta  fled  into  the 
small  kingdom  of  Nabatheans,  and  Uaite,  a 
nephew  of  his,  gained  the  throne  in  Aribi. 
He  dared  oppose  the  Assyrians  who  came  to 
take  revenge  for  the  assistance  which  his  pre¬ 
decessor  had  given  to  the  Babylonian  rebellion. 
He  was  captured,  bound  in  chains  like  a  dog, 
placed  in  a  cage,  and  carried  to  Assyria  to  be 
set  at  a  door  as  one  might  set  a  watchdog.1 
To  such  petty  and  disgusting  forms  of  punish¬ 
ment  had  an  Assyrian  king  descended. 

As  a  part  of  the  same  campaign  Ashur- 
banipal  took  vengeance  also  upon  Ammuladi, 
a  sheikh  of  the  Kedarenes,  because  they  had 
been  the  men  sent  to  Babylonia  by  the  former 
king  of  Aribi,  on  whom  they  were  dependent. 
Ammuladi  had  sought  refuge  in  Palestine, 
where  he  was  conquered  and  taken.  Adiya, 


1  Rassam  Cylinder,  ix,  95-109,  Jensen,  op.  cit.,  pp.  226-229. 


460  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


the  queen  of  Aribi,  was  also  taken,  and  Abiyate 
made  king  of  Aribi. 

Abiyate  held  this  post  but  a  short  time. 
The  events  which  led  to  his  removal  are  not 
quite  clear,  but  it  seems  probable  that  he  made 
some  arrangement  with  Uaite,  the  son  of  Bir- 
Dadda,  who  had  declared  himself  king  of 
Aribi,  for  later  Abiyate  appears  as  sheikh  of 
the  Kedarenes. 

A  new  alliance  against  Ashurbanipal  was 
soon  formed,  composed  of  Natnu,  king  of  the 
Nabatheans;  Uaite,  king  of  Aribi;  and  Abiyate, 
prince  of  the  Kedarenes.  The  union  of  these 
three  was  a  matter  of  no  mean  concern,  and 
Ashurbanipal  may  well  have  been  stirred  by 
it.  He  led  an  army  into  the  wilds  of  Arabia, 
but  did  not  penetrate  into  the  territory  of  the 
Nabatheans.  All  the  conspirators  save  Natnu 
were  captured  and  taken  to  Assyria. 

On  the  return  from  this  campaign  the  cities 
of  Ushu,  belonging  to  the  territory  of  Sidon, 
and  Akko,  which  had  joined  in  a  rebellion, 
were  severely  punished.1 

It  was  probably  during  this  Arabian  and 
Phoenician  disciplinary  campaign  that  Judah  also 
had  to  suffer  punishment,  and  her  king  Manas- 
seh  be  carried  into  captivity,  not  to  Assyria, 
but  to  Babylon  as  the  Jewish  Chronicler  re¬ 
cords,2  there  perhaps  to  suffer  for  some  aid 

1  Rassam  Cylinder,  ix,  115-128,  Jensen,  op.  cit.,  pp.  228,  229. 

2  2  Chronicles  xxxiii,  11.  This  account  of  Manasseh’s  capture  and 
deportation  to  Babylon  lias  been  much  doubted.  See,  for  example, 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURBANIPAL 


461 


given  directly  or  indirectly  to  Shamash- 
shum-ukin. 

One  more  word  only  concerning  the  external 
relations  of  Assyria  stands  written  in  the 
records  of  Ashurbanipal,  and  it  is  of  peace 
and  not  of  war.  King  Sarduris  IV  of  Urartu 
sent  to  Ashurbanipal  messengers  bearing  pres¬ 
ents  and  words  of  friendliness.* 1  Urartu  was 
once  more  strong  enough  to  maintain  some 
sort  of  independence.  Assyria  had  abandoned 
its  attempts  to  wreck  the  little  kingdom,  and 
the  two  were  friendly  neighbors.  They  needed 
so  to  be,  for  each  required  the  help  of  the 
other  in  warding  off  the  Indo-European  in¬ 
vasion  that  could  not  much  longer  be  post¬ 
poned.  Urartu  must  soon  fall  a  victim,  and 
the  danger  to  Assyria  was  scarcely  less  great. 

The  Cimmerian  swarms  who  had  over¬ 
whelmed  Gyges,  and  then  possessed  the  fertile 
plains  and  valleys  of  Asia  Minor  as  far  as 
Sardes,  returned  later  upon  their  course  and 
harassed  the  borders  of  the  weakened  empire 
of  Ashurbanipal.  But  Ardys,  son  of  Gyges, 
with  some  help  from  Assyrian  forces  avenged 
his  father’s  death  by  slaying  Dugdamme.  When 
Dugdamme2  was  dead  his  son,  Sandakshatra, 

Stade,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  i,  p.  640,  and  Wellhausen,  Prolegomena, 
pp.  206,  ff.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  doubt  is  not  well  founded.  For  a 
similar  judgment  see  Kittel,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  2te  Auf.,  ii,  p.  526. 

1  Rassam  Cylinder,  x,  40-50,  Jensen,  op.  ait.,  pp.  230,  231. 

2  Dugdamme  has  been  correctly  identified  by  Sayce  {Academy ,  1893, 
p.  277)  with  Lygdamis  (Strabo,  i,  iii,  §  21),  whose  name  must  now  be 
read  A vydafia;  instead  of  Avydujui(;. 


4C)2  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


was  still  able  to  control  and  discipline  his 
followers  and  hurl  them  against  the  Assyrian 
outposts.  Their  menace  lasted  unto  the  very 
end  of  the  great  king’s  days.1 

The  closing  years  of  Ashurbanipal’s  long  and 
laborious  reign  were  largely  spent  in  works 
of  peace.  Even  during  the  stormy  years  he 
had  had  great  interest  in  the  erection  of  build¬ 
ings  and  the  collection  and  copying  of  books 
for  his  library.  In  such  congenial  tasks  his 
later  days  were  chiefly  spent. 

It  is  not  possible  to  determine  in  every  case 
where  the  buildings  were  located  which  he 
rebuilt  or  otherwise  beautified.  The  temple 
of  E-kur-gal-kurra,  in  Nineveh,  he  adorned 
magnificently  and  supplied  with  a  new  statue 
of  the  god.  The  temple  of  E-sagila,  in  Baby¬ 
lon,  which  Sennacherib  had  destroyed  and 
Esarhaddon  partially  rebuilt,  he  completed  and 
restored  to  it  with  elaborate  pomp  and  ceremony 
the  god  Marduk  and  his  consort  Zarpanit, 
whom  Sennacherib  had  carried  into  Assyria. 
There  still  to  be  seen,  beneath  the  later  pave¬ 
ment  of  Nebuchadrezzar,  lie  the  flat  bricks, 
with  which  Ashurbanipal  laid  its  floor.2  The 
temple  of  E-zida,  in  Borsippa,  also  received 
new  ornaments.  Long  lists  of  colossal  works 
elsewhere  in  Babylon,  in  Arbela,  in  many  a 
lesser  place,  which  he  carried  on,  have  come 


1  See  Winckler,  Altorientalische  Forschungen,  i,  pp.  492-496. 

2  Robert  Koldewey,  Das  wieder  erstehende  Babylon,  pp.  202,  203. 


* 


iowa  to  o-v  o  e  'O  h  x  works  stoc  d  the 

rebuilt,  n  a  rtyy  of  :nagTiificence  never  on 

, 

‘•-h  biro,  a  here •  le  slowly  gac  he.et  his 

Yo  bomq  ynivd  oriT 

bofeq  ^mtffnxinftn  odf  tis  Mm//  oitgUkei  hrrti  ^vn  »i'lg 

■  .  1  |  ’  . 

iisVw  i  '  r  fi  •  3 

Wrought  from  ^ 


.f'll  *  5  ,  U4J  ■  ‘  ' 

’ 

and  the  copies  were  preserved  n  the  palace, 
while  he  originals  went  back  ;o  the  place 
.whence  they  were  borrowed. '  The  library  thus 

, 

In  it  the  s<  Ho  .r-  w no  a  .V-  Umbanipal  natron- 

<v  new  books  a  *  *.  range  of' learning  of 
i  ;'  day.  Ota  sphere  such  as  this 

. 

■  oricai  i?t  n  ion:  tould  r?  coin  d  : 
bare  cords  of  fact 


The  Dying  Lioness,  period  of  Ashurbanipal.  A 
strong  and  realistic  work  at  the  culminating  period 
of  Assyrian  art. 

[Reproduced  from  Bezold,  Nineve  und  Babylon, 
3te  Aufiage,  Leipzig,  1909.] 

The  Dying  Lion,  period  of  Ashurbanipal. 

[Reproduced  from  the  same.] 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURBANIPAL  463 

down  to  us.  Above  all  these  works  stood  the 
reconstruction  of  the  vast  palace  in  Nineveh, 
occupied  during  his  life  by  Sennacherib.  From 
the  foundation  stone  to  the  roof  was  this 
rebuilt  in  a  style  of  magnificence  never  seen 
before.1 

In  this  palace  he  lived  when  war  did  not 
call  him,  and  here  he  slowly  gathered  his 
great  library — the  chief  pride  of  his  life.  The 
two  kingdoms  were  ransacked  for  the  clay 
books  which  had  been  written  in  days  gone 
by.  Works  of  grammar,  of  lexicography,  of 
poetry,  history,  science,  and  religion  were 
brought  from  ancient  libraries  in  Babylonia. 
They  were  carefully  copied  in  the  Assyrian 
style,  with  notes  descriptive,  chronological,  or 
explanatory,  by  the  scholars  of  the  court, 
and  the  copies  were  preserved  in  the  palace, 
while  the  originals  went  back  to  the  place 
whence  they  were  borrowed.  The  library  thus 
formed  numbered  many  thousands  of  books. 
In  it  the  scholars,  whom  Ashurbanipal  patron- 
ized  so  well,  worked  carefully  on  in  the  writing 
of  new  books  on  all  the  range  of  learning  of 
the  day.  Out  of  an  atmosphere  such  as  this 
came  the  records  of  Ashurbanipars  own  reign. 
Small  wonder  is  it  that  under  these  conditions 
his  historical  inscriptions  should  be  couched  in 
a  style  finished,  elegant,  and  rhythmical,  with 
which  the  bare  records  of  fact  of  previous 


1  Rassam  Cylinder,  x,  51  -113,  Jensen,  op.  cit.,  pp.  230-235. 


4G4  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


reigns  may  not  be  compared  at  all.  They  have 
indeed  become  literature,  and  have  passed 
from  the  arid  annalistic  into  a  truly  historic 
style.  But  great  as  the  advance  was,  it  is 
still  to  be  said  that  they  were  not  equal  to 
the  best  of  the  literature  produced  by  the  most 
gifted  Egyptians,  and  are  not  for  a  moment 
to  be  compared  with  the  marvelous  history 
of  the  Davidic  period  which  the  Hebrews 
wrote  and  preserved  finally  in  the  books  of 
Samuel.  Nor  did  any  other  form  of  letters 
come  into  being  in  this  brilliant  reign  worthy 
to  be  set  by  the  side  of  the  lyric  Hebrew  Psalms 
or  of  the  moving  eloquence  of  the  Hebrew 
prophets. 

Not  in  letters  but  in  sculpture  did  the  Assyr¬ 
ians  now  reach  creative  production  of  a  high 
order.  Ashurbanipal  was  proud  of  his  skill 
and  daring  as  a  huntsman  and  his  palace 
was  decorated  not  so  much  with  pictures  of 
battles,  as  with  bas-reliefs  of  hunting  scenes. 
In  these,  Assyrian  sculpture  attained  a  level 
of  artistic  achievement  brilliant  alike  in  design, 
in  realism  and  in  execution.  It  is  lion  hunting 
that  finds  most  frequent  and  skillful  treatment. 
Often  indeed  were  the  lions  portrayed  stretched 
in  improbable,  if  not  impossible  posture,  but 
often  again  did  these  sculptors  picture  the 
dead  beast  limp,  in  convincing  pose,  and  with 
every  mark  of  stricken  power.  The  men  who 
designed  such  work  as  this  were  masters,  men 


THE  REIGN  OF  ASHURBANIPAL 


465 


of  genius  indeed.  With  their  work  Egypt 
can  offer  nothing  comparable  in  verity  or  in 
realization.  Nor  in  any  of  the  very  early 
Greek  art  has  aught  yet  been  discovered  worthy 
to  be  placed  by  its  side.  The  intervals  of  peace 
in  AshurbanipaFs  reign  had  borne  a  rich  harvest.1 

In  one  of  the  later  years  of  his  life,  probably 
about  640  B.  C.,  when  he  had  ceased  to  con¬ 
duct  any  campaigns  in  person,  he  held  high 
festival  in  gratitude  to  the  gods  for  victories 
in  the  field.  There  was  a  strange  sort  of  bar¬ 
barism  in  the  ceremonies,  for  Ashurbanipal 
rode  to  the  temple  of  Ishtar  in  a  chariot,  to 
which  were  harnessed  men  who  once  had  been 
rulers  like  himself.  They  were  Khumban- 
Khaldash  III,  once  king  of  Elam,  and  Pa’e, 
who  had  laid  claim  to  his  throne  when  his  flag 
was  lowered,  and  Tammaritu,  who  also  had 
ruled  in  Elam,  and  Uaite,  king  of  the  Arabs. 
It  was  a  strange  span,  and  their  humiliation 
was  a  senseless  yielding  to  the  baser  standards 
of  an  earlier  day.  A  greater  figure  than  any 
of  these  was  absent,  for  Psammeticus  was 
now  king  of  Egypt  in  very  truth,  and  no  Assyr¬ 
ian  conqueror  was  able  to  call  him  to  his 
triumphal  car. 

In  the  year  626  Ashurbanipal  died,  and  the 
kingdom  which  he  left  was  very  unlike  the 
kingdom  which  he  had  received  of  his  father. 

1  For  further  survey  of  the  art  of  the  period  see  Handcock,  Mesopo¬ 
tamia./}  Archaeology,  and  compare  further,  Delitzsch,  Asurbanipal  und  die 
a  syrische  Kultur  seiner  Zeit.  Leipzig,  1909. 


466  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


It  was,  indeed,  still  the  chief  power  of  western 
Asia,  but  it  was  not  the  only  power.  The 
day  of  its  unparalleled  glory  and  honor  was 
past.  Its  borders  had  shrunk  sadly,  for  Egypt 
was  lost,  Urartu  was  independent,  Syria  and 
Palestine  were  almost  at  liberty,  and  the 
northeastern  provinces  were  slowly  but  surely 
casting  in  their  lot  with  the  Manda.  The 
reign  of  Ashurbanipal  had  been  one  of  un¬ 
exampled  glory  in  the  arts  and  vocations  of 
peace.  The  temples  were  larger,  more  beau¬ 
tiful,  more  rich  in  storied  liturgy.  Science, 
whether  astronomy  or  mathematics,  had  reached 
a  higher  point  than  in  the  history  of  man 
before.  The  literature  of  Assyria,  though  laden 
with  a  cumbrous  system  of  writing  and  a 
monumental  style  which  was  inherited  from 
the  age  when  slabs  of  stone  were  the  only 
writing  material,  had  nevertheless,  under  royal 
patronage  taken  on  a  marvelous  development. 
Books  of  song  and  story,  of  religion  and  of 
law,  of  grammar  and  of  lexicography,  were 
produced  in  extraordinary  numbers  and  of 
remarkable  style  and  execution.  The  pride 
of  the  Assyrians  swelled  as  they  looked  on  all 
these  things,  and  saw  beside  them  the  mar¬ 
velous  material  prosperity  which  likewise  had  ex¬ 
ceeded  all  the  old  bounds.  The  Assyrian  trader 
was  in  all  lands,  and  his  wealth  was  growing 
apace.  In  all  these  things  Ashurbanipal  had 
marched  in  advance  of  his  predecessors. 


THE  REIGN  OE  ASHURBANIPAL 


467 


In  war  only  had  he  failed.  But  by  the  sword 
the  kingdom  of  Assyria  had  been  founded, 
by  the  sword  it  had  added  kingdom  unto 
kingdom  until  it  had  become  a  world  empire. 
By  the  sword  it  had  cleared  the  way  for  the 
advance  of  its  trader,  and  opened  up  to  civili¬ 
zation  great  territories,  some  of  which,  like 
Urartu,  had  even  adopted  its  method  of  writing. 
It  had  held  all  the  vast  empire  together  by 
the  sword,  and  not  by  beneficent  and  unselfish 
rule.  Even  unto  this  very  reign  barbaric 
treatment  of  men  who  yearned  for  liberty 
had  been  the  rule  and  not  the  exception.  That 
which  had  been  founded  by  the  sword  and 
maintained  by  the  sword  would  not  survive 
if  the  sword  lost  its  keenness  or  the  arm  which 
wielded  it  lost  its  strength  or  readiness.  This 
had  happened  in  the  days  of  Ashurbanipal. 
He  had  conquered  but  little  new  territory, 
made  scarcely  any  advance,  as  most  of  the 
kings  who  preceded  him  had  done.  He  had 
not  only  not  made  distinct  advances,  he  had 
actually  beaten  a  retreat,  and  the  empire  was 
smaller.  Worse  than  even  this,  he  had  weak¬ 
ened  the  borders  which  remained,  and  had 
not  erected  fortresses,  as  had  Sargon  and  Esar- 
haddon  and  even  Sennacherib,  for  the  defense 
of  the  frontier  against  aggression.  He  had 
gained  no  new  allies,  and  had  shown  no  con¬ 
sideration  or  friendship  for  any  people  who 
might  have  been  won  to  join  hands  with  Assyria 


468  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


when  the  hour  of  struggle  between  the  Semites 
and  the  Indo-Europeans  should  come.  On  the 
contrary,  his  brutality,  singularly  unsuited  to 
his  period  and  his  position  of  growing  weakness, 
his  bloodthirstiness,  his  destructive  raids  into 
the  territories  of  his  neighbors,  had  increased 
the  hatred  of  Assyria  into  a  passion.  All  these 
things  threatened  the  end  of  Assyrian  pres¬ 
tige,  if  not  the  entire  collapse  of  the  empire. 

The  culture  which  Ashurbanipal  had  nur¬ 
tured  and  disseminated  was  but  a  cloak  to 
cover  the  nakedness  of  Assyrian  savagery. 
It  never  became  a  part  of  the  life  of  the  people. 
It  contributed  not  to  national  patriotism,  but 
only  to  national  enervation.  Luxury  had 
usurped  the  place  of  simplicity  and  weakness 
had  conquered  strength.  The  most  brilliant 
color  of  all  Assyrian  history  was  only  overlaid 
on  the  palace  and  temple  walls.  The  shadows 
were  growing  long  and  deep,  and  the  night  of 
Assyria  was  approaching. 


CHAPTER  XI 


THE  FALL  OF  ASSYRIA 

Ashurbanipal  had  maintained  internal  peace 
in  his  empire,  and  the  prosperity  which  Nineveh 
had  enjoyed  was  conducive  to  a  quiet  passing 
of  the  succession.  He  was  followed  by  his 
son,  Ashur-etil-ili-ukinni,  who  is  also  known 
by  the  shortened  form  of  his  name  as  Ashur- 
etil-ili.  Of  his  reign  we  possess  only  two  in¬ 
scriptions.  The  first  occurs  in  a  number  of 
copies  and  reads  only,  “I  am  Ashur-etil-ili, 
king  of  Kisshati,  king  of  Assyria,  son  of  Ashur¬ 
banipal,  king  of  Kisshati,  king  of  Assyria. 
I  caused  bricks  to  be  made  for  the  building  of 
E-zida  in  Calah,  for  the  life  of  my  soul  I  caused 
them  to  be  made.”1  The  second  gives  his 
titles  and  genealogy  in  the  same  manner,  and 
adds  a  note  concerning  the  beginning  of  his 
reign,  but  it  is  not  now  legible.  Besides  these 
two  texts  there  remain  only  a  few  tablets 
found  at  Nippur  dated  in  the  second  and  the 
fourth  years  of  his  reign.2  These  latter  show 

1  Published  I  R.  8,  No.  3,  translated  by  Winckler,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl. 
ii,  pp.  268,  269. 

2  Hilprecht,  “Keilinschriftliche  Funde,”  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie, 
iv,  pp.  164,  ff.  See  also  Messerschmidt,  Die  Inschrift  der  Stele  Na- 
buna'id’s,  p.  12,  note  1. 


469 


470  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


that  as  late  as  the  fourth  year  of  his  reign  he 
still  held  the  title  of  king  of  Sumer  and  Accad, 
and  therefore  continued  to  rule  over  a  large 
portion  of  Babylonia,  if  not  over  the  city  of 
Babylon  itself. 

The  ruined  remains  of  his  palace  at  Cal  ah 
have  been  found,  and  it  forms  a  strange  con¬ 
trast  to  the  imposing  work  of  Sargon.  Its  rooms 
are  small  and  their  ceilings  low ;  the  wainscoting, 
instead  of  fine  alabaster  richly  carved,  was  formed 
only  of  slabs  of  roughly  cut  limestone,  and  it 
bears  every  mark  of  hasty  construction.1 

We  have  no  other  remains  of  his  reign,  nor 
do  we  know  how  long  it  continued.  Assyrian 
records  terminate  suddenly  in  the  reign  of 
Ashurbanipal,  in  which  we  reach  at  once  the 
summit  and  the  end  of  Assyrian  carefulness  in 
recording  the  events  of  reigns  and  the  passage 
of  time.  It  is,  of  course,  possible  that  there 
may  be  buried  somewhere  some  records  yet 
unfound  of  this  reign,  but  it  is  certain  that 
they  must  be  few  and  unimportant,  else  would 
they  have  been  found  in  the  thoroughly  ex¬ 
plored  chambers  in  which  so  many  royal  his¬ 
torical  inscriptions  have  been  discovered.  It 
may  seem  strange  at  first  that  an  abundant 
mass  of  inscription  material  for  this  reign 
should  not  have  been  produced;  that,  in  other 
words,  a  period  of  extraordinary  literary  activ- 

1  Layard,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains,  ii,  pp.  38,  39;  Nineveh  and  Baby¬ 
lon,  p.  558. 


THE  FALL  OF  ASSYRIA  471 

ity  should  be  suddenly  followed  by  a  period 
in  which  scarcely  anything  beyond  bare  titles 
should  be  written.  But  this  is  not  a  correct 
statement  of  the  case.  The  literary  produc¬ 
tivity  did  not  cease  with  Ashur-etil-ili-ukinni. 
It  had  already  ceased  while  Ashurbanipal  was 
still  reigning.  The  story,  as  above  set  forth, 
shows  that  we  have  no  knowledge  of  the  later 
years  of  his  reign.  The  reign  of  Ashur-etil-ili- 
ukinni  only  continued  the  dearth  of  record 
which  the  later  years  of  Ashurbanipal  had 
begun.  As  in  some  other  periods  of  Assyrian 
history,  there  was  indeed  but  little  to  tell. 
In  his  later  days  Ashurbanipal  had  remained 
quietly  in  Nineveh,  interested  more  in  luxury 
and  in  his  tablets  or  books  than  in  the  salva¬ 
tion  of  his  empire.  In  quietness  somewhat 
similar  the  reign  of  his  successor  probably 
passed  away.  He  had  no  enthusiasm  and  no 
ability  for  any  new  conquests.  He  could  not 
really  defend  that  which  he  already  had.  The 
air  must  have  been  filled  with  rumors  of  re¬ 
bellion  and  with  murmurs  of  dread  concern¬ 
ing  the  future.  The  future  was  out  of  his  power, 
and  he  could  only  await,  and  not  avert,  the 
fate  of  Assyria.  It  did  not  come  in  his  reign, 
and  the  helpless  empire  was  handed  on  to  his 
successor. 

There  is  doubt  who  the  next  king  of 
Assyria  may  have  been.  Mention  is  found  of 
a  certain  king  whose  name  was  Sin-shum- 


472  HISTOEY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


lishir,  who  must  have  reigned  during  this 
period,  and  for  eight  months  was  acknowledged 
in  Nippur  as  king  of  Assyria.  But  we  have 
no  word  of  his  doings. 

The  next  king  of  Assyria  known  to  us  was 
Sin-sliar-ishkun.  He  had  come  to  the  throne 
in  sorry  times,  and  that  he  managed  for  some 
years  to  keep  some  sort  of  hold  upon  the  fall¬ 
ing  empire  is  at  least  surprising.  No  historical 
inscription,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word, 
has  come  down  to  us  from  his  reign.  One 
badly  broken  cylinder,1  for  which  there  are  some 
fragmentary  duplicates,  has  been  found  in  which 
there  are  the  titles  and  some  words  of  empty 
boasting  concerning  the  king’s  deeds.  Be¬ 
sides  this  we  have  only  three  brief  business 
documents  found  in  Babylonia.2  These  are, 
however,  very  interesting  because  they  are 
dated  two  of  them  in  Sippar  and  the  third  in 
Uruk.  The  former  belong  to  the  second  year 
of  the  king’s  reign  and  the  latter  to  the  seventh 
year.  From  this  interesting  discovery  it  ap¬ 
pears  that  for  seven  years  at  least  Sin-shar- 
ishkun  was  acknowledged  as  king  over  a  por¬ 
tion  of  Babylonia,  though  the  city  of  Babylon 
was  not  included  in  this  district. 

We  have  no  knowledge  of  the  events  of  his 

1 1  R.  8,  6,  translated  by  Winckler,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  ii,  pp.  270,  271. 

2  Evetts  in  Strassmaier’s  Babylonische  Texte,  vi,  B.,  p.  90;  Winckler, 
Berliner  Philologische  W ochenschrift,  18  May,  1889,  col.  636,  footnote, 
and  King,  “Sin-shar-ishkun  and  His  Rule  in  Babylonia,”  Zeitschrift 
filr  Assyriologie,  ix,  pp.  396,  ff.  Compare  further,  Clay,  Bab.  Ex.,  viii, 
pp.  11,  ff. 


THE  FALL  OF  ASSYRIA 


473 


reign  based  on  a  careful  record,  as  we  have 
had  before,  and  what  little  we  do  know  is 
learned  chiefly  from  the  Babylonian  inscrip¬ 
tions.  The  Greeks  and  Latins  contradict  each 
other  so  sharply,  and  are  so  commonly  at 
variance  with  facts,  amply  substantiated  in 
Babylonian  documents,  that  very  little  can  be 
made  out  of  them.  It  is  a  fair  inference  from 
the  records  of  Nabonidus,  whose  historiog¬ 
raphers  have  written  carefully  of  this  period, 
that  Sin-shar-ishkun  was  a  man  of  greater 
force  than  his  predecessor.  He  already  pos¬ 
sessed  a  part  of  Babylonia,  and  desired  to  make 
his  dominion  more  strong  and  compact,  and 
also  wished  to  increase  it  by  taking  from  the 
new  Chaldean  empire,  of  which  there  is  much 
to  be  told  later,  some  of  its  fairest  portions. 
Nabopolassar  was  now  king  of  Babylon,  and 
Sin-shar-ishkun  invaded  the  territory  of  Baby¬ 
lonia  when  Nabopolassar  was  absent  from  his 
capital  city  carrying  on  some  kind  of  cam¬ 
paign  in  northern  Mesopotamia  directed  against 
the  Subaru.  This  cut  off  the  return  of  Nabopo¬ 
lassar,  and  brought  even  Babylon  itself  into 
danger.  What  was  to  be  done  in  order  to 
save  his  capital  but  secure  allies  from  some 
quarter  who  could  assist  in  driving  out  the 
Assyrians?  The  campaign  of  Nabopolassar 
had  won  for  him  the  title  of  king  of  Kisshati, 
which  he  uses  in  609,  at  which  time  he  was 
in  possession  of  northern  Mesopotamia.  It 


474  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


was  probably  this  year  or  the  year  before 
(610  or  609)  that  Sin-shar-ishkun  attacked  the 
Babylonian  provinces.  Nabopolassar  found  it 
very  difficult  to  secure  an  ally  who  would  give 
aid  without  exacting  too  heavy  a  price.  If 
Elam  had  still  been  a  strong  country,  it  would 
have  formed  the  natural  ally,  as  it  had  been 
traditionally  the  friend  of  the  Chaldeans.  But 
Elam  was  a  waste  land.  The  only  possible 
hope  was  in  the  north  and  west.  To  the  Um- 
man-Manda  must  he  go  for  help.  At  the  time 
of  Nabopolassar,  and  also  as  late  as  Nabonidus, 
the  word  Manda  was  used  generally  as  a  term 
for  the  nomadic  peoples  of  Kurdistan  and 
the  far  northeastern  lands.  The  Babylonians, 
indeed,  knew  very  little  of  these  peoples.  The 
Assyrians  had  come  very  closely  into  touch 
with  them  at  several  times  since  the  days 
of  Esarhaddon.  They  had  felt  the  danger 
which  was  threatened  by  the  growth  of  a  new 
power  on  their  borders,  and  they  had  suffered 
the  loss  of  a  number  of  fine  provinces  through 
it.  This  new  power  was  Indo-European,  and 
the  people  who  founded  and  led  it  are  identi¬ 
fied  by  the  Greek  historians  of  a  later  day 
with  the  Medes.  To  appeal  to  the  Manda 
for  help  in  driving  out  the  Assyrians  from 
Babylonia  was  nothing  short  of  madness.  There 
were  many  points  of  approach  between  Baby¬ 
lonia  and  Assyria,  there  were  many  between 
Assyria  and  Chaldea.  There  was  no  good 


THE  FALL  OF  ASSYRIA 


475 


reason  why  these  two  peoples  should  not 
unite  in  friendship  and  prepare  to  oppose  the 
further  extension  of  the  power  of  the  Manda. 
The  Assyrians  certainly  knew  that  the  Manda 
coveted  Assyria  and  the  great  Mesopotamian 
valley,  and  the  Babylonians  might  easily  have 
learned  this  if  they  did  not  already  know  it. 
The  Manda  were  now  rapidly  coalescing  with 
other  immigrants  to  form  a  real  nation,  the 
Medes,  and  this  united  people  had  produced  a 
leader  whose  name  is  distinctly  Indo-European, 
Uvakshatra  (Kyaxares). 

But  Nabopolassar  either  did  not  know  of 
the  plans  and  hopes  of  the  Medes,  or,  knowing 
them,  hoped  to  divert  them  from  himself  against 
Assyria,  and  he  ventured  to  invite  their  assist¬ 
ance.  They  came  not  for  the  profit  of  Nabo¬ 
polassar,  the  Chaldeans,  and  Babylonia,  but 
for  their  own  aggrandizement.  Sin-shar-ishkun 
and  his  Assyrian  army  were  driven  back  from 
northern  Babylonia  into  Assyria,  and  Nabo¬ 
polassar  at  once  possessed  himself  of  the  new 
provinces.  The  Medes  pushed  on  after  the 
Assyrians,  retreating  toward  Nineveh.  Be¬ 
tween  them  there  could  only  be  the  deepest 
hostility.  In  the  forces  of  the  Medes1  there 
must  be  inhabitants  of  provinces  which  had 
been  ruthlessly  ravaged  by  Assyrian  conquer- 

1  The  name  Manda  in  the  Babylonian  texts  applies  to  the  same 
peoples  that  are  called  Sakaj  or  Scythians  by  the  Greeks.  See  Delattre, 
Le  Peuple  et  l' Empire  des  Medes ,  p.  190;  Winckler,  Untersuchungen 
zur  altorientalischen  Geschichte,  pp.  112,  124,  125. 


47G  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

ors.  They  had  certainly  old  grievances  to  re¬ 
venge,  and  were  likely  to  spare  not.  There  is 
evidence  in  abundance  that  Assyria  was  hated 
all  over  western  Asia,  and  probably  also  in 
Egypt.  For  ages  she  had  plundered  all  peoples 
within  the  range  of  her  possible  influence. 
Everywhere  that  her  name  was  known  it  was 
execrated.  The  voice  of  the  Phoenician  cities 
is  not  heard  as  it  is  lifted  in  wrath  and  hatred 
against  the  great  city  of  Nineveh,  but  a  Hebrew 
prophet,  Nahum,  utters  the  undoubted  feeling 
of  the  whole  Western  world  when,  in  speaking 
of  the  ruin  of  Assyria,  he  says,  “All  that  hear 
the  bruit  of  thee  [the  report  of  thy  fall]  clap 
the  hands  over  thee:  for  upon  whom  hath  not 
thy  wickedness  passed  continually?’ n 

Nabopolassar  did  not  join  with  the  Medes 
in  the  pursuit  of  the  Assyrians,  for  he  was 
anxious  to  settle  and  fix  his  own  throne  and 
attend  to  the  reorganization  of  the  provinces 
which  were  now  added  to  the  empire.  If  the 
Medes  had  needed  help,  they  might  easily  have 
obtained  it,  for  many  a  small  or  great  people 
would  gladly  have  joined  in  the  undoing  of 
Nineveh  for  hatred’s  sake  or  for  the  sake  of 
the  vast  plunder  which  must  have  been  stored 
in  the  city.  For  centuries  the  whole  civilized 
world  had  paid  unwilling  tribute  to  the  great 
city,  and  the  treasure  thus  poured  into  it  had 
not  all  been  spent  in  the  maintenance  of  the 


1  Nah.  iii,  19. 


THE  FALL  OF  ASSYRIA 


477 


standing  army.  Plunder  beyond  dreams  of 
avarice  was  there  heaped  up  awaiting  the 
despoiler.  The  Mecles  would  be  willing  to  dare 
single-handed  an  attack  on  a  city  which  thus 
promised  to  enrich  the  successful.  The  Baby¬ 
lonians,  or  rather  the  Chaldeans,  had  given 
up  the  race,  content  to  secure  what  might 
fall  to  them  when  Assyria  was  broken  by  the 
onslaught  of  the  Medes.  The  attitude  of 
Nabopolassar  in  refusing  to  lay  a  hand  on 
Nineveh,  is  ascribed  by  the  devout  king, 
Nabonidus,  to  a  desire  to  reverence  the  gods 
of  the  great  hostile  but  related  people.  To 
Nabonidus  it  would  have  been  sacrilege  for 
Nabopolassar  to  treat  the  god  of  Assyria,  as 
Sennacherib  had  treated  those  of  Babylonia.1 

It  will  later  appear  in  this  narrative  that 
Egypt  was  anxious  to  share  in  the  division  of 
the  spoil  of  Assyria,  and  actually  dispatched 
an  expedition  northward.  This  step  was,  how¬ 
ever,  taken  too  late,  and  the  Egyptians  were 
not  on  the  ground  until  the  last  great  scene 
was  over.  The  unwillingness  of  Nabopolassar 
and  the  hesitancy  or  delay  of  other  states 
left  the  Medes  alone  to  take  vengeance  upon 
Assyria.  Whether  the  fleeing  Assyrians  made 
a  stand  at  any  point  before  falling  back  upon 
the  capital  or  not  we  do  not  know.  If  they 

1  Nabonidus  (Constantinople)  Stela,  col.  i,  lines  1-41,  published  by 
Scheil,  Recueil  de  Travaux,  xviii.  Messerschmidt,  Mitteilungen  der 
Vorderasiatischen  Gesellschaft,  189G,  1.  It  is  transliterated  and  translated 
by  Langdon,  Neubabylonische  Konigsinschriften,  pp.  270,  ft. 


478  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


did,  they  were  defeated  and  at  last  were  com¬ 
pelled  to  take  refuge  in  the  capital  city.  The 
Medes  began  a  siege.  The  memory  which  the 
Greeks  and  Latins  handed  down  from  that 
day  represented  the  Assyrians  as  so  weak  that 
they  would  fall  an  easy  prey  to  any  people. 
This  was  certainly  erroneous.  There  is  a  basis 
of  truth  for  the  story  of  weakness,  for  there 
were  evident  signs  of  decay  during  the  reign 
of  Ashurbanipal.  These  had,  however,  not 
gone  so  far  as  to  make  the  power  of  Assyria 
contemptible.  Weakened  though  the  empire 
had  been  by  the  loss  of  the  northern  provinces 
through  the  great  migrations,  and  weakened 
though  it  had  been  by  the  loss  of  Egypt,  and 
weakened  though  it  had  been  by  the  terrible 
civil  war  between  Ashurbanipal  and  Shamash- 
shum-ukin,  it  was  still  the  greatest  single 
power  in  the  world.  It  had,  indeed,  lost  the 
power  of  aggression  which  had  swept  over 
mountain  and  valley,  but  in  defense  it  would 
still  be  a  dangerous  antagonist. 

When  the  Median  forces  came  up  to  the 
walls  of  Nineveh  they  found  before  them  a 
city  better  prepared  for  defense1  than  any 
had  probably  ever  been  in  the  world  before. 
The  vast  walls  might  seem  to  defy  any  engines 
that  the  semibarbaric  hordes  of  the  new  power 
could  bring  to  bear.  Within  was  the  remnant 

1  See  Billerbock  und  Jeremias,  “Der  Untergang  Nineveh’s  und  die 
Weissagungsschrift  des  Nahum  von  Elkoseh,”  Beitrage  zur  Assyriologie, 
iii,  pp.  87-188. 


THE  FALL  OF  ASSYRIA 


479 


of  an  army  which  had  won  a  thousand  fields. 
If  the  army  was  well  managed  and  the  city 
had  had  some  warning  of  the  approaching 
siege,  it  would  be  safe  to  predict  that  the  con¬ 
test  must  be  long  and  bloody.  The  people 
of  Nineveh  must  feel  that  not  only  the  su¬ 
premacy  of  western  Asia,  but  their  very 
existence  as  an  independent  people,  was  at 
stake.  The  Assyrians  would  certainly  fight 
with  the  intensity  of  despair.  We  do  not  know, 
unfortunately,  the  story  of  that  memorable 
siege.  A  people  civilized  for  centuries  was 
walled  in  by  the  forces  of  a  new  people  fresh, 
strong,  invincible.  Then,  as  often  in  later 
days,  civilization  went  down  before  barbarism. 
Nineveh  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Medes. 
Later  times  preserved  a  memory  that  Sin- 
shar-ishkun  perished  in  the  flames  of  his  palace, 
to  which  he  had  committed  himself  when  he 
foresaw  the  end.1 

The  city  was  plundered  of  everything  of 
value  which  it  contained,  and  then  given  to 
the  torch.  The  houses  of  the  poor,  built  prob¬ 
ably  of  unburnt  bricks,  would  soon  be  a  ruin. 
The  great  palaces,  when  the  cedar  beams 
which  supported  the  upper  stories  had  been 
burnt  off,  fell  in  heaps.  Their  great,  thick 
walls,  built  of  unburnt  bricks  with  the  outer 
covering  of  beautiful  burnt  bricks,  cracked 

1  Abydenus,  Frag.  7.  Miiller-Didot,  Frag.  Hist.  Grcec.,  iv,  pp.  282, 
283,  narrates  that  Saracos  so  met  his  end,  and  it  is  now  generally  be¬ 
lieved  that  he  is  Sin-shar-islikun. 


480  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


open,  and  when  the  rains  descended  the  un¬ 
burnt  bricks  soon  dissolved  away  into  the 
clay  of  which  they  had  been  made.  The  in¬ 
habitants  had  fled  to  the  four  winds  of  heaven 
and  returned  no  more  to  inhabit  the  ruins. 
A  Hebrew  prophet,  Zephaniah,  a  contemporary 
of  the  great  event,  has  described  this  desola¬ 
tion  as  none  other:  “And  he  will  stretch  out 
his  hand  against  the  north,  and  destroy  Assyria; 
and  will  make  Nineveh  a  desolation,  and  dry 
like  the  wilderness.  And  herds  shall  lie  down 
in  the  midst  of  her,  all  the  beasts  of  the  nations : 
both  the  pelican  and  the  porcupine  shall  lodge 
in  the  capitals  thereof:  their  voice  shall  sing 
in  the  windows;  desolation  shall  be  in  the 
thresholds:  for  he  hath  laid  bare  the  cedar 
work.  This  is  the  joyous  city  that  dwelt 
carelessly,  that  said  in  her  heart,  I  am,  and 
there  is  none  else  beside  me:  how  is  she  be¬ 
come  a  desolation,  a  place  for  beasts  to  lie 
down  in!  everyone  that  passeth  by  her  shall 
hiss,  and  wag  his  hand.”1  Nineveh  fell  in  the 
year  607  or  606,  and  her  inhabitants  fled  from 
the  stricken  city.  Some  came  not  back,  but 
others  returned  and  have  left  evidence2  that 
portions  of  the  city  at  least  were  re-inhabited. 
But  its  real  vitality  was  gone  and  soon  its 
major  buildings  could  never  be  restored  to 
royal  uses.  Then  it  was  that  the  waters  out 

1  Zeph.  ii,  13-15. 

2  See  above,  vol.  i,  p.  346. 


THE  FALL  OF  ASSYRIA 


481 


of  heaven,  or  from  the  overflowing  river  made 
the  soft  clay  into  a  covering  over  the  great 
palaces  and  their  records.  The  winds  bore 
seeds  into  the  mass,  and  a  carpet  of  grass 
covered  the  mounds,  and  stunted  trees  grew 
out  of  them.  Year  by  year  the  mound  bore 
less  and  less  resemblance  to  the  site  of  a  city, 
until  no  trace  remained  above  ground  of  the 
magnificence  that  once  had  been.  In  401 
B.  C.,  a  cultivated  Greek1  leading  homeward 
the  fragment  of  his  gallant  army  of  ten  thou¬ 
sand  men  passed  by  the  mounds  and  never 
knew  that  beneath  them  lay  the  palaces  of 
the  great  Assyrian  kings.  In  later  ages  the 
Parthians  built  a  fortress  on  the  spot,  which 
they  called  Ninus,  and  other  communities 
settled  either  above  the  ruins  or  near  to  them.2 
Men  must  have  homes,  and  the  ground  bore 
no  trace  of  the  great  city  upon  which  dire  and 
irreparable  vengeance  had  fallen.  But,  though 
cities  might  be  built  upon  the  soil  and  men 
congregate  where  the  Assyrian  cities  had  been, 
there  was  in  reality  no  healing  of  the  wound 
which  the  Medes  had  given.  The  Assyrian 
empire  had  come  to  a  final  end.  As  they  had 

1  Xenophon  ( Anabasis ,  iii,  iv,  §  1)  in  passing  between  Larissa  and 
Mespila  went  close  by  the  ruins.  Compare  Karbe,  Der  Marsch  der 
Zehntausend  vom  Zapates  zurn  Phasis-Araxes  (Berlin,  1898),  p.  10,  and 
von  Treuenfeld,  Der  Zug  der  10,000  Griechen.  (Naumburg,  1890),  p.  96. 

2  For  the  later  history  of  the  site  see  Lincke,  “Continuance  of  the 
Names  of  Assyria  and  Nineveh  after  607-606  B.  C.,”  in  the  Memoirs 
of  the  IX  Oriental  Congress  at  London,  1891,  and  Assyria  und  Nineveh 
in  Geschichte  und  Sage  der  Mittelmeervolker  (nach  607-606),  1894. 


482  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


done  unto  others  so  had  it  been  done  unto 
them.  For  more  than  a  thousand  years  of 
time  the  Assyrian  empire  had  endured.  Dur¬ 
ing  nearly  all  of  this  vast  period  it  had  been 
building  and  increasing.  The  best  of  the 
resources  of  the  world  had  been  poured  into 
it.  The  leadership  of  the  Semitic  race  had 
belonged  to  it,  and  this  was  now  yielded  up 
to  the  Chaldeans,  who  had  become  the  heirs 
of  the  Babylonians,  from  whom  the  Assyrians 
had  taken  it. 

It  remained  only  to  parcel  out,  along  with 
the  rest  of  the  plunder,  the  Assyrian  territory. 
The  Medes  secured  at  this  one  stroke  the 
old  territory  of  Assyria,  together  with  all  the 
northern  provinces  as  far  west  as  the  river 
Halys,  in  Asia  Minor.  To  the  Chaldeans, 
who  were  now  masters  in  Babylonia,  there 
came  the  Mesopotamian  possessions  and,  as 
we  shall  later  see,  the  Syro-phcenician  like¬ 
wise.  By  this  change  of  ownership  the  Semites 
retained  the  larger  part  of  the  territory  over 
which  they  had  long  been  masters,  but  the 
Indo-Europeans  had  made  great  gains.  A 
life-and-death  struggle  would  soon  begin  be¬ 
tween  them  for  the  possession  of  western  Asia. 


BOOK  IV 


THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  CHALDEAN 

EMPIRE 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  REIGN  OF  NABOPOLASSAR 

When  Ashurbanipal  died,  in  626,  he  left, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  an  empire  sadly 
weakened  and  far  departed  from  its  ancient 
glory.  He  had,  indeed,  held  together  the  main 
body  of  it,  but  the  outer  provinces  had  mostly 
fallen  away.  He  had  left  in  the  world  many 
enemies  of  Assyria  and  sadly  few  friends. 
He  had  held  Babylonia  to  the  empire  after 
displaying  such  fierceness  in  the  punishment 
of  its  rebels  as  made  them  unable  to  rise  again 
during  his  lifetime.  Up  to  his  death  he  reigned 
as  king  in  Assyria  under  the  name  of  Ashur¬ 
banipal,  and  in  Babylon  as  Kandalanu.* 1  The 

1  It  had  come  to  be  established  as  almost  a  usual  rule  for  the  As¬ 
syrian  king  who  reigned  in  Babylon  to  have  another  name  than  that 
used  in  Assyria,  as  witness  Tiglathpileser  III  and  Shalmaneser  IV. 
George  Smith  first  suggested  ( History  of  Assurbanipal,  pp.  323,  324) 
that  Kandalanu  and  Ashurbanipal  were  the  same  person,  and  Schrader 
(“Kineladan  and  Asurbanipal”  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Keilschriftforsehung, 

i,  pp.  222-232)  attempted  to  demonstrate  it.  Oppert  was  not  convinced 
by  the  argument  (“La  Vraie  Personalite  et  les  dates  du  roi  Chinaladan,” 

483 


484  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


hour  of  his  death  was  the  signal  for  the  prep¬ 
aration  of  a  new  revolt  in  Babylonia.  This 
was  inevitable.  The  Babylonians  had  hated 
Assyrian  rule  since  the  conciliatory  policy  of 
Esarhaddon  had  ceased,  and  were  ready  for 
any  attempt  which  might  promise  to  restore 
to  them  the  prestige  they  once  possessed  and 
to  their  city  the  primacy  of  the  world.  To 
achieve  such  marvels  of  history  there  was  no 
further  strength  in  themselves.  We  have  seen 
long  since  the  decay  of  the  real  Babylonian 
people,  who  had  early  ceased  to  be  Semites 
of  pure  blood.  But  the  very  intermixing  of 
other  fresh  blood  had  kept  them  alive  as  an 
entity,  though  it  had  almost  entirely  destroyed 
their  identity.  The  reinforcement  of  life  which 
came  to  them  from  the  Kassites  had  kept 
awake  in  them  a  national  separateness,  when 
without  it  they  would  almost  certainly  have 
been  swallowed  up  and  lost,  as  other  peoples 
had  been  before  them.  They  were,  however, 
steadily  decaying  and  diminishing,  and  could 
be  kept  further  alive  only  by  a  new  influx  of 
fresh  blood  from  some  source.  The  Assyrian 
kings  had  repeatedly  settled  colonists  in  various 
parts  of  Babylonia,  from  the  •  days  of  Tig- 

Revue  d' Assyriologie,  i,  pp.  1-11),  and  Sayce  agrees  with  him.  On 
the  other  hand,  Assyriologists  generally  accept  the  identity  of  Ashur- 
banipal  and  Kandalanu  (Tiele,  Bab.  assyr.  Gesch.,  pp.  412-414;  Winckler, 
Geschichte,  pp.  135,  282,  289;  King,  art.  “Babylonia”  in  Encyclopaedia 
Biblica,  i,  col.  451).  Hommel  (art.  “Assyria”  in  Hastings’s  Bible  Dic¬ 
tionary,  i,  p.  189)  thinks  that  the  evidence  is  indecisive,  and  leaves 
the  question  open.  See  further  above,  p.  451,  note  1. 


THE  REIGN  OE  NABOPOLASSAR 


485 


lathpileser  IV  onward.  These  lost  their  national 
identity  and  became  Babylonians  to  all  intents 
and  purposes. 

It  is  a  striking  evidence  that  the  Baby¬ 
lonians  still  possessed  a  certain  distinctive 
influence,  that  they  were  able  to  absorb  alien 
elements  in  this  manner.  Even  with  the 
accession  of  strength  which  came  from  these 
colonizations  the  Babylonian  people  would  not 
have  possessed  enough  vitality  to  make  any 
insurrection  against  Assyria.  They  might  join 
in  one,  but  the  motive  force  must  be  supplied 
by  a  nation  which  had  in  it  fresher  life  and 
greater  vitality.  A  people  possessing  the  nec¬ 
essary  force  was  at  hand,  and  the  insurrection 
would  soon  and  speedily  become  a  revolution. 
When  Ashur-etil-ili-ukinni  was  crowned  king 
of  Assyria  he  could  also  claim  to  be  king  of 
Babylon,  for  the  hour  of  open  rebellion  was 
not  yet  come.1  As  we  have  seen,  the  Assyrians 
continued  during  his  entire  reign  to  hold  a 
considerable  portion  of  Babylonia,  and  even 
so  late  as  the  seventh  year  of  his  successor, 
Sin-shar-ishkun,2  they  still  retained  much.  The 

1  There  has  been  found  at  Nippur  a  tablet  dated  in  the  fourth  year 
of  Ashuretililani  (see  Hilprecht,  “Keilinschriftliche  Funde  in  Niffer,” 
Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie,  iv,  p.  167),  which  shows  that  he  was  ac¬ 
knowledged  as  king  of  Babylonia  in  Nippur  as  late  as  621  B.  C. 

2  The  relationship  of  Sin-shar-ishkun  to  Asshuretililani  is  made  clear 
in  a  tablet  published  by  Scheil  (“Sin-shar-ishkup,  fils  d’Asshurbanipal,” 
Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie,  xi,  pp.  47,  ff.).  A  contract  tablet  from 
Uruk  dated  in  the  seventh  year  of  Sin-shar-ishkun  (King,  “Sin-shar- 
ishkun  and  His  Rule  in  Babylonia,”  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie,  ix, 
pp.  396-400)  would  gpern  to  show  that  his  rule  was  officially  recog- 


486  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


city  of  Babylon  was  apparently  lost  in  the 
very  beginning,  and  Nabopolassar  gradually 
gained  in  power  and  influence  through  a  suc¬ 
cessful  revolution.  It  was  spontaneous,  but 
had  been  slowly  maturing  for  years.  The 
Babylonian  people  did  not  profit  by  it  as  a 
people,  but  were,  on  the  contrary,  engulfed 
in  it  and  practically  disappeared  from  history. 
They  were  able  to  push  forward  again,  and 
even  supplied  later  a  king  to  the  empire  which 
resulted  from  the  revolution.  The  old  influence 
in  the  world,  however,  never  returned,  and 
they  were  soon  absorbed  into  a  later  popula¬ 
tion  and  are  heard  of  no  more.  That  another 
people  should  be  able  first  to  gain  leadership 
over  the  Babylonians,  who  had  founded  a 
mighty  empire  and  had  stood  with  the  Egyp¬ 
tians  as  the  leading  nations  of  civilization,  and 
then  to  overwhelm  them  and  take  their  place 
in  the  world’s  history,  is  indeed  an  event  of 
moment.  We  shall  need  to  give  heed  to  the 
people  who  could  accomplish  a  feat  so  great. 
They  must  belong  to  the  world’s  greatest  races, 
and  behind  them  must  have  been  a  period 
during  which  they  had  been  prepared  for  their 
momentous  destiny. 

The  people  who  wrought  Ais  revolution  were 
the  Chaldeans,  whom  we  have  already  met  as 

nized  in  Uruk  at  about  612  B.  C.  Tablets  also  exist  (Evetts,  Inscriptions 
of  the  Reigns  of  Evil-Merodach,  Neriglissar,  and  Laborosoarchod,  pp. 
90,  91;  Winckler,  Berliner  Philologische  Wochenschrift ,  18  May,  1889, 
col.  636,  footnote)  dated  at  Sippara  in  the  second  year  of  Sin-shar-ishkun. 


THE  REIGN  OF  NABOPOLASSAR 


487 


bitter  enemies  of  the  Assyrians.  They  were 
not  less  enemies  of  the  Babylonians,  as  we 
have  also  seen,  and  a  union  of  feeling  between 
Babylonia  and  Assyria  was  brought  about  in 
the  time  of  Merodach-baladan,  when  the  Baby¬ 
lonians  looked  upon  the  Assyrians  as  their 
natural  defenders  against  these  unwelcome  in¬ 
vaders.  The  Assyrians  had,  however,  done  no 
more  than  drive  them  southward  or  hold  them 
in  check.  They  had  not  driven  them  from  the 
country  entirely,  but  left  them  to  become 
slowly  attached  to  the  soil  and  a  genuine  por¬ 
tion  of  the  population.  vThe  origin  of  the 
Chaldeans  is  obscure,  but  some  facts  concern¬ 
ing  them  may  be  considered  as  fairly  well 
known.  vThey  invaded  Babylonia  from  the 
south,  coming  from  the  neighborhood  of  the 
Persian  Gulf.  Whence  they  had  come  into 
the  Sea  Lands  at  that  point  is  nearly  as  well 
known  by  a  process  of  elimination.  They 
could  not  have  come  from  Elam,  and  they 
must  therefore  be  settlers  from  Arabia.  From 
what  part  of  that  old  home  land  of  Semites 
they  had  come  is  not  known.  It  is,  however, 
clear  that  they  were  Semites.  They  bore 
Semitic  names,  as  far  as  any  of  their  names 
are  known  to  us,  and  they  readily  adapted 
themselves  to  Semitic  customs,  whether  of 
religion,  government,  or  social  life.  Their 
appearance  in  Babylonia  was  at  an  early  date, 
and  they  had  gradually  spread  in  scattered 


488  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


communities  over  a  considerable  portion  of 
the  country,  both  north  and  south.  In  this 
they  form  a  close  parallel  to  the  Aramaeans, 
who  belonged,  indeed,  to  the  same  general 
wave  of  migration  as  themselves,  and  had 
early  proved  dangerous  neighbors  to  the  As¬ 
syrians. 

The  chief  stronghold  of  the  Chaldeans  was 
the  territory  known  as  the  Sea  Lands.  This 
country  was  somewhat  larger  than  the  alluvial 
lands  about  the  mouths  of  the  rivers,  as  it 
apparently  included  a  strip  of  territory  of 
unknown  extent  along  the  Arabian  coast  of 
the  Persian  Gulf.  It  had  a  government  and 
a  history  of  its  own,  running  back  through  the 
centuries,  of  which,  however,  only  fragments 
are  known  to  us.  That  part  of  its  history 
which  is  known  is  little  more  than  a  story  of 
a  half-nomad,  half-agricultural  and  pastoral 
people  who  kept  up  a  running  fire  of  efforts 
to  possess  themselves  of  the  rich  lands  and 
wealthy  cities  of  their  more  fortunate  Baby¬ 
lonian  neighbors.  The  other  Chaldean  com¬ 
munities  have  left  even  less  mark  of  their 
individuality  upon  history.  They  formed,  in¬ 
deed,  principalities,  which  the  boastfulness  of 
Assyrian  kings  has  elevated  into  large  king¬ 
doms  and  endowed  with  great  armies,  and 
with  forces  which  could  be  overcome  only  by 
the  might  of  the  great  god  Ashur.  Like  their 
more  numerous  fellows  in  the  Sea  Lands,  these 


THE  REIGN  OF  NABOPOLASSAR  489 

also  were  anxious  chiefly  to  find  a  leader  who 
could  give  into  their  hands  the  possessions  of 
the  Babylonians.  Any  prince  of  one  of  these 
small  states  or  communities  who  could  win 
battles  over  the  native  Babylonians  was  sure 
of  a  following  of  Chaldeans  generally,  and  not 
merely  of  the  men  of  his  own  community. 
This  was  the  surest  way  of  coming  out  of  the 
limitations  of  a  petty  princedom  in  Bit-Yakin, 
or  in  the  Sea  Lands,  and  of  becoming  the  king 
of  Kaldi  Land.  A  man  who  could  gain  the 
title  of  king  of  Babylon  or  of  king  of  Sumer 
and  Accad  would  stand  so  much  above  his 
fellow-princes  among  the  Chaldeans  that  he 
might  well  be  called  by  the  lesser  title  of  king 
of  Kaldi.  This  fact  goes  far  to  explain  the  con¬ 
stant  attempts  of  Chaldean  princes  upon  Baby¬ 
lon.  They  were  not  moved  by  a  sentimental 
appreciation  of  the  glories  of  Babylon  and 
its  ancient  royal  titles,  as  were  Tiglathpileser 
IV  and  Sargon.  They  thirsted  for  power  over 
the  Babylonians  because  it  brought  wealth 
and  ease,  and  with  these  headship  among 
their  own  Chaldean  peoples.  This  leadership 
among  the  Chaldeans  had,  however,  more  than 
once  wrecked  their  hopes,  when  by  contact 
with  Babylonians  they  had  learned  more  of 
the  beauty  and  dignity  of  Babylonian  civiliza¬ 
tion  and  come  to  recognize  in  the  title  an 
expression  not  so  much  of  wealth  as  of  honor, 
a  headship  in  civilization.  From  such  ideas 


490  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


they  were  dragged  down  by  the  Chaldean 
population,  who  thirsted  after  the  wealth  and 
demanded  that  they  should  receive  the  well- 
cultivated  lands  and  the  city  property.  These 
demands  had  been  measurably  granted  b}r 
Merodach-baladan,  and  as  a  direct  consequence 
of  this  compliance  his  new  rule  was  promptly 
shattered  by  the  Assyrians,  and  Chaldean 
supremacy  was  postponed. 

As  we  have  already  said,  however,  the 
Chaldeans  had  not  disappeared  during  the 
period  of  the  Assyrian  supremacy  over  Baby¬ 
lonia.  They  existed  in  great  numbers  in  Baby¬ 
lonia,  and  were  only  awaiting  the  day  when 
they  should  be  able  to  produce  the  man  strong 
enough  to  seize  or  to  create  a  favorable  oppor¬ 
tunity,  as  Merodach-baladan  had  done,  by 
which  they  might  again  rule.  Of  the  Chaldean 
communities  which  had  not  been  absorbed  by 
the  Babylonians  the  kingdom  or  principality 
of  the  Sea  Lands  was  at  this  time  still  the 
largest  and  strongest.  North  of  it  were  a 
number  of  Chaldean  tribes,  among  which  Bit- 
Sil-ani,  Bit-Sa’alli,  and  Bit-Sala  had  long  been 
the  most  prominent,  for  their  names  find  men¬ 
tion  in  the  inscriptions  of  Tiglathpileser. 
Indeed,  were  it  not  for  his  records  and  the 
Annals  of  the  later  Assyrian  kings,  we  should 
know  even  less  than  we  do  of  the  Chaldeans. 
The  Babylonian  inscriptions,  devoted  to  tem¬ 
ples,  palaces,  and  canals,  ignore  their  very 


THE  REIGN  OF  NABOPOLASSAR 


491 


existence,  and  when  they  came  to  dominion 
themselves  they  acted  in  all  things  as  Baby- 
lonians.  Above  these  tribes  going  northward 
were  the  communities  of  Bit-Amukkani,  out  of 
which  came  Ukin-zer,  and  of  Bit-Adini,  which 
lay  just  south  of  the  city  of  Babylon,  though 
the  latter  was  largely  Aramaean  in  its  stock, 
but  having  Chaldean  elements  and  casting  in 
its  lot  with  them.1 

Even  here  the  line  df  Chaldean  commu¬ 
nities  did  not  cease,  for  the  tribe  of  the  Bit- 
Dakkuri  was  established  north  of  the  great 
capital  city.  These  Chaldean  communities, 
though  they  were  Semites,  were,  nevertheless, 
alien  communities.  They  did  not,  as  a  rule, 
intermingle  readily  with  the  Babylonians,  or 
they  would  all  long  since  have  been  absorbed. 
Though  settled  in  a  land  which  had  been 
tilled  for  many  centuries,  they  still  remained 
half-nomads.  The  land  was  not  overpopulated, 
and  if  they  had  desired  to  settle  down  as  quiet 
and  peaceable  agriculturists,  there  would  have 
been  plenty  of  room  for  them.  They  did  not 
accept  this  opportunity,  but  over  and  over 
again  had  been  disturbers  of  the  peace,  eager 
to  gain  the  complete  control,  and  desirous  Q  P‘ 
not  of  making  a  destiny  for  themselves,  but 
wishing  to  rob  the  Babylonians  of  that  which 
the  industry  of  ages  had  accumulated  by  slow 
and  painful  steps.  In  the  attainment  of  this 

1  Si'na  Schiffer,  Die  Aramtier,  pp.  61,  ff. 


492  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


purpose  they  had  been  defeated  before  by  the 
Assyrians.  There  was  now  a  larger  hope,  for 
Assyrian  vitality  was  gone  and  the  whole 
vast  empire  was  falling  to  pieces.  As  has 
already  been  said,  Babylonian  vitality  was  also 
at  the  lowest  ebb,  and  could  offer  no  effectual 
resistance  to  any  sharp  blow  delivered  by  a 
strong  arm.  But,  though  the  Chaldeans  must 
have  known  of  the  evident  decay  of  Assyria, 
they  were  too  wily  to  rise  again  in  rebellion 
at  an  inopportune  time.  They  could  not  be 
sure  that  Ashurbanipal  did  not  possess  resources 
which  might  be  directed  against  them  with 
crushing  force,  and  they  well  knew  that  no 
movement  of  his  was  tempered  with  mercy. 

When  Ashurbanipal  died  the  time  had  come 
to  make  a  fresh  attempt  for  Chaldean  inde¬ 
pendence  of  Assyria  and  Chaldean  dominance 
over  Babylonia.  Immediately  after  the  death 
of  Ashurbanipal  we  find  Nabopolassar  (Nabu- 
aplu-usur)  king  of  Babylon.  We  do  not  know 
what  his  origin  was.  It  has  been  supposed  that 
he  might  be  a  son  of  Kandalanu;  and  this 
supposition  would  explain  the  readiness  and 
quickness  with  which  he  secured  the  throne. 
There  is,  however,  not  a  shadow  of  evidence 
for  the  view.  If  it  were  the  case,  it  would 
certainly  seem  natural  for  him  to  have  spoken 
of  his  royal  origin  in  one  or  the  other  of  the 
few  inscriptions1  which  have  come  down  to 


1  His  inscriptions,  dealing  almost  exclusively  with  building  opera- 


THE  REIGN  OF  NABOPOLASSAR 


493 


us.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  possible  to 
prove  that  he  was  either  of  pure  Babylonian 
or  of  Chaldean  origin.  The  kingdom  which 
he  founded  was,  however,  plainly  Chaldean. 
The  king’s  supporters  were  Chaldeans,  and  as 
the  years  went  on  the  Babylonian  influence 
quite  gave  way  to  Chaldean,  so  that  the  Baby¬ 
lonians  may  be  considered  as  also  losing  their 
historic  identity  when  Nineveh  fell.  The  change 
of  rulers  from  Ashurbanipal  to  Nabopolassar 
was  momentous  in  consequences.  With  that 
change  the  headship  of  Assyria  over  the  Semitic 
peoples  of  Asia  came  to  an  end  forever,  and 
leadership  among  them  passed  to  the  Chal¬ 
deans,  whose  Semitic  blood  was  probably  al¬ 
most,  if  not  quite,  as  pure  as  that  of  the 

tions,  give  unsatisfactory  views  of  the  political  and  military  history. 
The  chief  texts  are  the  following:  (a)  The  Marduk-temple  (Esagila) 
inscription,  published  and  translated  by  Strassmaier,  Zeitschrift  fur 
Assyriologie,  iv,  106,  ff.,  and  also  translated  by  Winckler,  Keilinschrift- 
liche  Bibliothek  III,  part  2,  pp.  2-7.  Republished  by  McGee,  Beitrage 
zur  Assyriologie  iii,  525,  ff.  Newly  transliterated  and  translated  by 
Langdon,  Neubabylonische  Konigsinschriften,  pp.  60-65,  with  use  also 
of  a  new  collation  of  parts  of  the  text  by  King,  (b)  The  Sippar-Canal 
Inscription,  published  by  Winckler,  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie,  ii, 
69,  If,  and  translated  by  him  in  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  iii,  p.  2,  pp.  6-9. 
Transliterated  and  translated  by  Langdon,  Neubabylonische  Konigs - 
inschriften,  pp.  64,  65.  (c)  The  Belit-Temple  Inscription  published 

by  Winckler,  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie,  ii,  145,  172  and  translated 
by  him,  Keilinschriftliche  Bibliothek,  iii,  part  2,  pp.  8,  9.  Transliterated 
and  translated  by  Langdon,  Neubabylonische  Inschriften,  pp.  64-67. 
(d)  Regulations  for  priestly  robes,  etc.,  in  the  Shamash-temple  at  Sippar. 
British  Museum  91002,  published  by  Jastrow,  American  Journal  of 
Semitic  Languages,  xv,  65,  ff.,  with  photograph  of  the  text,  autograph 
copy,  transliterated  and  translated.  Again  transliterated  and  trans¬ 
lated  by  Langdon,  op.  cit.,  pp.  70,  71.  (e)  The  Ninib-Temple  Inscrip¬ 

tion,  four  duplicate  cylinders,  Berlin  Museum,  published  with  trans¬ 
literation  and  translation  by  Weissbach,  Babylonische  Miszellen,  plate 
8,  and  pp.  20-23.  Langdon,  op.  cit.,  pp.  66-69.  Text  No.  4. 


494  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


Assyrians.  They  had  apparently  not  suffered 
so  great  an  intermixture  with  other  peoples 
as  had  the  Babylonians.  With  this  change 
of  rulers  there  was  founded  not  merely  a  new 
dynasty,  but  also  a  new  kingdom.  It  ‘is  indeed 
possible  to  consider  this  new  monarchy  as  a 
reestablishment  of  the  old  Babylonian  em¬ 
pire,  but  it  is  more  in  accordance  with  the 
facts  to  look  on  it  as  a  new  Chaldean  empire 
succeeding  to  the  wealth  and  position  of  the 
ancient  Babylonian  empire.  As  the  monarchy 
which  he  founded  was  so  plainly  Chaldean,  it 
lies  near  to  the  other  facts  to  consider  Nabo- 
polassar  himself  a  Chaldean.  This  view  is 
not  inconsistent  with  the  fragmentary  and  un¬ 
satisfactory  allusions  of  Abydenus,  who  repre¬ 
sents  Nabopolassar  as  a  general  in  the  army 
of  Sarakos1  (Sin-shar-ishkun),  which  is  probably 
only  a  form  of  saying  that  Nabopolassar  was 
as  king  of  Babylon  subject  to  the  suzerainty 
of  Assyria— the  Babylonian  king  hence  occupy¬ 
ing  a  place  subordinate  to  the  Assyrian. 

In  this  account  of  Abydenus,  which  may 
perhaps  rest  on  some  good  Babylonian  source, 
we  have  a  probable  hint  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  the  new  empire  was  founded.  Nabo¬ 
polassar  gained  the  throne  with  Chaldean 
assistance,  and  at  first  was  willing  to  hold  his 
rule  under  the  nominal  overlordship  of  Assyria. 

1  According  to  Abydenus  (Fragment  7,  in  Miiller-Didot,  Fragmenta 
Hist.  Grcec.,  iv,  p.  282),  Saracos  (that  is,  Sin-shar-ishkun)  sent  Bussalos- 
soros  (that  is,  Nabopolassar)  to  defend  Chaldea. 


THE  REIGN  OF  NABOPOLASSAR  495 

This  he  might  do  while  still  nourishing  the 
hope  that  he  might  speedily  be  able  to  cast 
off  altogether  the  suzerainty  of  Assyria.  We 
have,  however,  no  Chaldean  or  Babylonian 
documents  which  give  any  account  of  the 
foundation  of  the  new  kingdom,  though  in 
one  text  Nabopolassar  calls  himself  the  uone 
who  laid  the  foundation  of  the  land.” 

We  have  several  historical  inscriptions  of 
the  reign  of  Nabopolassar,  but  these,  after  the 
manner  of  Babylonian  inscriptions  almost  from 
the  very  beginning,  are  devoted  only  to  the 
works  of  peace — to  building  and  repairing. 
In  the  first  of  the  inscriptions1  he  describes  in 
the  usual  way  the  rebuilding  of  a  great  Marduk 
temple  in  Babylon,  which  was  in  a  ruinous 
condition.  In  this  inscription  he  does  not 
call  himself  king  of  Babylon,  but  shakkanak,  as 
though  he  would  not  yet  -claim  to  be  wholly 
free  from  Assyrian  influence,  nor  be  above  the 
holding  of  a  title  more  or  less  subordinate, 
though  he  does  call  himself  king  of  Sumer 
and  Accad.  In  the  second2  of  three  inscrip¬ 
tions  he  adopts  the  title  of  king  of  Babylon, 
and  we  are  therefore  safe  in  the  supposition 
that  this  text  belongs  to  a  somewhat  later 
period,  when  all  semblance  of  dependence  upon 

1  Published  by  Strassmaier,  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie,  iv,  pp.  106- 
113,  129-136.  Translated  also  by  Winckler,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  iii, 
part  2,  pp.  3-7.  Langdon,  op.  cit.,  pp.  60-65. 

2  Published  by  Winckler,  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie,  ii,  pp.  69-  75, 
and  translated  by  him,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  iii,  part  2,  pp.  7-9. 


496  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


Assyria  had  been  thrown  off  and  Nabopolassar 
was  king  indeed  in  his  own  right  and  by  suffer¬ 
ance  of  his  people.  In  this  inscription  he 
records  the  construction  of  a  canal  at  Sippar. 
The  Euphrates  had  made  a  new  course  away 
from  the  city,  and  the  king  now  built  a  canal 
by  which  the  water  was  again  to  be  brought 
to  the  city  walls.  In  this  construction  of  a 
canal  Nabopolassar  was  following  the  ancient 
precedents  of  Babylonian  kings  from  the  days 
of  Hammurapi  onward.  In  the  third  of  these 
inscriptions1  he  is  called  both  king  of  Babylon 
and  king  of  Sumer  and  Accad,  and  in  it  he 
gives  an  account  of  the  rebuilding  of  a  temple 
of  Belit  at  Sippar.  The  reign  of  Nabopolassar 
was  not  so  peaceful  as  these  fragments  might 
seem  to  indicate.  He  was  not  so  absorbed 
in  the  building  of  temples  and  canals  during 
the  whole  of  his  reign.  He  had  indeed  a  delicate 
and  difficult  game  of  politics  to  play,  in  order 
that  he  should  not  be  wheedled  out  of  his 
gains  by  the  quick-witted  Assyrians,  nor  un¬ 
seated  from  the  tottering  throne  by  a  crafty 
prince  of  some  Chaldean  tribe.  He  had  also 
to  fight  a  severe  fight  against  Egypt  in  order 
to  save  the  borders  of  his  empire. 

Egypt  had  now  again  become  one  of  the 
world’s  chief  powers.  The  methods  pursued 
by  Psammeticlius  I  by  which  he  had  carried 

1  Published  by  Winckler,  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologie,  ii,  pp.  144-147, 
172,  and  translated  by  him,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  iii,  part  2,  pp.  6-9. 
Langdon,  op.  tit.,  pp.  64,  65. 


THE  REIGN  OE  NABOPOLASSAR 


497 


Egypt  to  a  position  almost  as  lofty  as  that 
occupied  in  the  glorious  days  of  Thutmosis  III 
and  Rameses  II  were  carried  still  further  by 
his  son  and  successor,  Necho  II.  But  a  short 
time  had  elapsed  since  Egypt  was  governed 
by  Assyrians,  but  now  the  Egyptians  began 
to  hope  to  participate  in  the  division  of  As¬ 
syrian  plunder  which  must  soon  come.  In 
609  it  was  already  plain  to  Necho  that  Assyria 
could  endure  but  a  short  time.  We  must  often 
remind  ourselves  that  the  flight  of  news  from 
kingdom  to  kingdom  or  from  land  to  land  was 
exceedingly  rapid  in  the  ancient  Orient.  King¬ 
doms  were  not  separated  by  miles  of  territory 
over  which  no  sound  was  heard,  and  across 
which  no  rumor  came  flying  on  the  wings 
of  the  wind.  Necho  knew  of  the  sorry  plight 
of  the  last  Assyrian  king.  This  was  surely 
his  opportunity  to  regain  not  merely  all  Palestine 
and  Assyria,  but  even  perhaps  the  great  plains 
to  the  Euphrates  which  had  once  been  Hittite. 
In  609,  he  left  Egypt,  with  an  army,  determined 
to  press  on  to  Assyria  to  participate  in  the 
first  distribution  of  booty,  confident  that  on 
his  return  he  could  readily  reduce  to  subjection 
any  Syrian  or  Palestinian  prince  who  might 
think  it  safe  to  rebel  against  possible  Egyptian 
tyranny,  when  relieved  of  the  long-time  op¬ 
pression  of  Assyria. 

Necho  marched  by  land,  and  the  city  of 
Gaza,  which  was  first  approached,  offered  some 


498  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


resistance.  It  was,  however,  speedily  taken, 
as  was  also  Ashkelon,1  and  Necho  went  on. 
No  further  opposition  was  made  to  his  advance 
until  he  turned  from  the  coast  into  the  plain 
of  Esdraelon.  Nineveh  had  not  yet  fallen, 
but  it  was  long  since  the  great  city  had  dis¬ 
turbed  the  west.  The  Syrophoenician  cities 
were,  and  had  been,  practically  independent. 
They  were,  however,  too  dispirited  to  offer 
battle  to  any  new  conqueror  who  appeared, 
hoping  to  suffer  less  through  oppression  when 
they  blindly  yielded  than  they  would  through 
a  hopeless  resistance.  Alone  had  the  king¬ 
dom  of  Judah  the  courage  to  dare  a  resistance. 
Judah  had  enjoyed  the  period  of  peaceful  in¬ 
dependence  too  much  to  think  of  falling  lightly 
into  a  new  condition  of  servitude.  Josiah 
was  king,  and  in  him  an  intense  national  spirit 
ruled.  He  had  severed  the  ties  which  bound 
Judah  to  neighboring  nations  in  their  religion, 
and  his  proclamation  of  Deuteronomy  had 
widened  the  breach.  He  would  dare  to  attack 
Necho  if  no  others  had  the  courage.2  We 
do  not  know  exactly  his  course  from  Jerusalem, 
but  the  place  of  the  battle  would  seem  to 

1  Jer.  xlvii,  1,  5. 

2  The  chronicler  (2  Chron.  xxxv,  20-22)  has  preserved  an  interesting 
reminiscence  of  Necho’s  intercourse  with  Josiah:  Necho  “sent  ambassa¬ 
dors  to  him  [Josiah],  saying,  What  have  I  to  do  with  thee,  thou  king 
of  Judah?  I  come  not  against  thee  this  day,  but  against  the  house 
wherewith  I  have  war;  and  God  hath  commanded  me  to  make  haste: 
forbear  thee  from  meddling  with  God,  who  is  with  me,  that  he  destroy 
thee  not.” 


THE  REIGN  OF  NABOPOLASSAR  400 

indicate  that  he  intended  to  attack  the  flank 
or  rear  of  Necho’s  army,  which  was  moving 
northward  and  had  passed  by  Judah.  The 
two  armies  met  at  Megiddo,  a  place  glorious 
in  the  annals  of  Egypt,  for  there,  nearly  a 
thousand  years  before,  Thutmosis  III  had  con¬ 
quered  the  combined  forces  of  the  Syrophoenician 
states.  Necho  was  victorious,  and  Josiah  fell 
upon  the  field.1  The  army  of  Judah  returned 
in  terror  to  Jerusalem,  and  made  Jehoahaz, 
younger  son  of  Josiah,  king,  apparently  passing 
over  the  elder  son,  Eliakim,  because  he  was 
disposed  to  submit  to  Necho.  After  the  battle 
of  Megiddo,  Necho  went  on  northward,  meet¬ 
ing  with  no  further  opposition,  and  halted  at 
Riblah,  in  Coele-Syria.  Here  he  thought  over 
the  appointment  of  Jehoahaz  as  king  of  Judah, 
and  was  dissatisfied  with  the  choice.  He 
now  considered  himself  the  real  master  of 
Judah,  after  the  victory  at  Megiddo,  and 
ordered  Jehoahaz  to  come  to  Riblah,  where 
he  was  cast  into  chains,  while  his  brother 
Eliakim  was  made  king  in  his  stead,  under 
the  name  Jehoiakim.  Upon  Judah  was  laid  a 

1  2  Kings  xxiii,  29.  Herodotus,  ii,  159,  refers  to  a  defeat  of  the  Syrians 
at  Magdolus,  undoubtedly  the  same  event.  The  only  error  in  H. 
is  that  he  has  confused  Megiddo  and  Migdol,  the  border  fortress  of 
Egypt  (Exod.  xiv,  2,  and  Jer.  xliv,  1).  W.  E.  Barnes  ( The  Books  of 
Chronicles ,  Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools,  p.  288.  See  also  his  Commentary 
on  Kings  ii,  p.  134)  very  curiously  interprets  the  passage  from  Kings  as 
meaning  that  Josiah  “sought  an  interview  with  Necho  and  was  assassi¬ 
nated  by  him  at  the  town  of  Megiddo.”  But  surely  the  Hebrew  is  not 
intended  to  convey  this  sense.  Compare  Burney,  Notes  on  the  Hebrew 
Text  of  the  Books  of  Kings ,  p.  363. 


500  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


fine  of  one  talent  of  gold  and  one  hundred 
talents  of  silver,  which  Jehoiakim  managed  to 
pay.  Jehoahaz  was  taken  to  Egypt,  where 
he  soon  afterward  died.  Necho  II  was  now 
absolute  master  of  all  the  Syrophcenician  states 
and  of  the  erstwhile  provinces  of  Assyria,  as 
far  as  the  Euphrates. 

While  Necho  II  was  stripping  from  Assyria 
the  western  provinces,  and  Nabopolassar  was 
adding  to  his  new  empire  the  portion  of  northern 
Babylonia  which  Sin-shar-ishkun  had  previously 
held,  the  Medes  took  the  city  of  Nineveh.1 
In  one  mighty  crash  the  great  empire  fell  in 
fragments,  and  for  a  time  Nabopolassar  was 
busy  in  securing  complete  control  of  the  Baby¬ 
lonian  and  Mesopotamian  territory  which  had 
fallen  into  his  hands.  Necho  II,  assured  of 
the  possession  of  Palestine  and  Syria,  had 
returned  to  Egypt  with  the  captive  Jehoahaz. 
He  determined,  however,  to  again  go  to  the 
north  and  east  to  see  if  he  could  extend  his 
borders  beyond  the  Euphrates  into  the  northern 
parts  of  Mesopotamia,  which  had  now  fallen 
to  Nabopolassar. 

From  Egypt  he  led  out  an  immense  army, 
greater  than  any  put  in  the  field  for  a  long 
time.  Besides  the  native  troops  he  had  bodies 
of  Libyans,  Ethiopians,  and  other  allies.  He 
reached  Carchemish,  on  the  Euphrates,  with¬ 
out  opposition,  and  was  probably  about  to 

1  See  above,  pp.  478,  479. 


THE  REIGN  OF  NABOPOLASSAR 


501 


cross  the  river  when  he  was  met  by  a  Chaldean 
army.  Nabopolassar  was  in  failing  health,  and 
unable  to  leave  his  capital,  but  aware  of  the 
danger  which  confronted  his  empire,  had  dis¬ 
patched  his  son,  Nebuchadrezzar,  with  a  large 
army.  Nebuchadrezzar  gave  battle  at  Carche- 
mish,  and  won  a  crushing  victory.1  The  Egyp¬ 
tians  fled  in  confusion,  and  did  not  dare  to 
make  a  stand  until  they  had  reached  Egypt. 
Nebuchadrezzar  pursued,  and  not  one  of  the 
Syrophcenician  states  raised  an  arm  against 
him.  He  did  not  cross  the  territory  of 
Judah,  but  passed  round  by  the  seacoast  and 
reached  Pelusium  unopposed.  Jerusalem  was 
in  terror  lest  he  should  attack  it,  and  all  Egypt 
was  in  an  agony  of  fear.  The  slaughter  of 
Carchemish  had  undone  Necho,  and  there  was 
no  heart  in  Egypt  to  face  Nebuchadrezzar  in 
battle.  In  those  hours  the  fate  of  Egypt 
wavered  in  the  balance.  If  Nebuchadrezzar 
went  on  over  the  Egyptian  border,  there  was 
every  probability  that  Egypt  would  be  as 
easily  overrun  as  it  had  been  by  Esarhaddon. 
He  had  won  Syria  and  Palestine  for  the  new 
Chaldean  empire  after  but  a  very  short  Egyp¬ 
tian  regime.  If  he  could  now  win  Egypt, 
the  Chaldean  empire  would  have  become  in 
twenty  years  of  history  the  world’s  chief  power. 
At  this  juncture  he  was  suddenly  apprised  of 
the  death  at  Babylon  of  his  father,  Nabo- 


1  Jer.  xlvi,  2;  compare  also  2  Kings  xxiv,  7. 


502  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

polassar.  He  was  compelled  to  drop  all  de¬ 
signs  on  Egypt  and  return  with  speed  to  his 
capital,  to  receive  the  government.  No  man 
could  prophesy  what  might  happen  in  the 
transfer  of  the  crown  in  times  so  troublous. 
An  outbreak  of  rebellion  might  easily  occur, 
and  another  seize  the  throne  before  the  right¬ 
ful  heir  could  appear. 

The  reign  of  Nabopolassar  had  been  im¬ 
portant  in  its  achievements.  He  had  wrought 
much  for  the  wealth  and  advantage  of  his  land 
by  canals  and  by  great  buildings.  He  had 
been  successful  in  diplomacy,  for  his  winning 
of  the  Medes  to  his  aid  had  not  been  attended 
by  any  unfortunate  results.  He  had  in  war, 
both  in  his  own  person  and  in  the  victories  of 
his  son,  reached  a  wonderful  success,  by  which 
in  twenty  years  he  had  built  an  empire  of 
colossal  proportions  around  the  small  territory 
which  he  had  alone  possessed  in  the  beginning. 
It  may  easily  be  said  that  the  greatness  of 
this  work  is  diminished  by  the  undoubted 
fact  that  the  time  for  it  was  ripe.  Assyria 
was  weak  at  just  the  moment  when  Nabo¬ 
polassar  was  ready  to  begin  empire  building. 
Had  he  become  king  of  Babylon  a  little  earlier, 
he  would  not  so  readily  have  made  an  em¬ 
pire;  of  this  there  can  be  no  doubt.  But  while 
the  opportunity  was  at  hand,  there  was  no 
less  a  signal  display  of  ability  in  its  seizing. 
The  name  of  Nabopolassar  must  be  added  to 


THE  REIGN  OF  NABOPOLASSAR 


503 


the  list  of  the  greatest  kings  who  had  ruled 
in  Babylonia.  The  new  Chaldean  empire  had 
begun  well.  If  now  he  were  able  to  hand  over 
to  a  son  or  heir  the  power  which  he  had  seized 
so  suddenly,  there  was  hope  for  a  brilliant 
future.  The  son  was  ready,  a  son  as  great  as 
his  father  in  plan,  and  even  greater  in  action. 


CHAPTER  II 


THE  REIGN  OF  NEBUCHADREZZAR 

When  Nebuchadrezzar  stood  at  the  borders 
of  Egypt  and  a  messenger  advised  him  of  his 
father’s  death  in  far-away  Babylonia,  a  crisis 
had  come  in  the  history  of  a  new  empire.  But 
for  that  death  Nebuchadrezzar  would  almost 
certainly  have  added  Egypt  to  his  laurels, 
and  that  were  a  thrilling  possibility.  But 
a  danger  fully  as  stirring  lay  also  before  him. 
If  he  had  failed  to  reach  Babylonia  before  the 
discordant  elements  in  the  new  world  empire 
were  able  to  gather  unity  and  force,  all  that 
his  father  had  built  might  readily  be  destroyed. 
The  day  cried  for  a  man  of  decision  and  of 
quick  movement. 

Nebuchadrezzar  reached  Babylon  from  the 
borders  of  Egypt  in  season  to  prevent  any 
outbreak  in  favor  of  a  usurper,  if  any  such 
were  intended.  He  was  received  as  king  of 
Babylon  without  a  sign  of  any  trouble.  So 
began  one  of  the  longest  and  most  brilliant 
reigns  (604-562  B.  C.)  of  human  history. 
Nebuchadrezzar  has  not  left  the  world  with¬ 
out  written  witnesses  of  his  great  deeds.  In 

504 


THE  REIGN  OF  NEBUCHADREZZAR  505 


his  inscriptions,  however,  he  follows  the  common 
Babylonian  custom  of  omitting  all  reference  to 
wars,  sieges,  campaigns,  and  battles.  Only 
in  a  very  few  instances  is  there  a  single  refer¬ 
ence  to  any  of  these.  The  great  burden  of  all 
the  inscriptions  is  building.  In  Babylon  was 
centered  his  chief  pride,  and  of  temples  and 
palaces,  and  not  of  battles  and  sieges,  were 
his  boasts.  As  we  are  therefore  deprived  of 
first-hand  information  from  Babylonian  or  Chal¬ 
dean  sources,  we  are  forced  to  turn  elsewhere 
for  information  of  the  achievements  of  Nebu¬ 
chadrezzar  as  an  organizer  of  armies  and  a 
planner  and  conductor  of  campaigns.  The 
knowledge  thus  obtained  from  other  peoples  is 
fragmentary,  because  each  writer  was  more 
concerned  about  his  own  people  than  about 
the  Chaldeans.  The  best  help  of  this  kind 
is  obtained  from  the  Hebrews,  with  whom 
Nebuchadrezzar  had  the  first  difficulties  of 
his  reign,  and  against  whom  his  first  opera¬ 
tions  were  directed. 

Johoiakim,  king  of  Judah,  had  paid  his 
tribute  regularly  for  three  years1  after  Nebu¬ 
chadrezzar  left  Palestine  on  his  hasty  journey 
to  Babylon  to  assume  the  throne.  He  was, 
however,  harassed  by  a  patriotic  party  deter¬ 
mined  to  compel  him  to  throw  off  the  Chaldean 
yoke.  The  only  clear  voice  raised  against  such 
stupendous  folly  was  that  of  Jeremiah,  who, 


1  2  Kings  xxiv,  1. 


506  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


like  Isaiah  in  a  similar  crisis,  warned  the  na¬ 
tion  against  its  suicidal  folly.  But  the  more 
Jeremiah  denounced  the  greater  his  unpopular¬ 
ity  and  the  more  certain  the  triumph  of  the 
popular  party.  At  last  Jehoiakim  omitted  the 
payment  of  the  tribute,  and  the  issue  was 
fairly  joined.  Nebuchadrezzar  did  not  invade 
the  land  at  once,  either  because  he  held  the 
rebellion  in  contempt  and  supposed  it  would 
be  easily  overcome,  or  because  he  was  still 
too  greatly  absorbed  in  duties  at  home.  His 
first  move  was  to  encourage  Judah’s  neighbors 
to  ravage  the  country  in  connection  with 
Chaldean  guerrilla  bands.  The  Syrians,  Moab¬ 
ites,  and  Ammonites  were  very  willing  to  join 
in  such  attacks  on  their  old  enemy.  This 
haphazard  warfare,  however,  came  to  nothing, 
and  Nebuchadrezzar  was  compelled  to  more 
strenuous  measures.  In  597  he  dispatched  an 
army  to  besiege  Jerusalem,  and  soon  after  its 
appearance  before  the  walls  he  arrived  to  take 
charge  of  it  in  person.  With  such  forces  as  he 
could  muster  there  could  be  no  doubt  of  the 
ultimate  issue,  but  Jehoiakim  was  spared  the 
sight  of  his  country’s  ruin,  by  a  sudden  death. 
His  successor,  a  lad  of  eighteen  years  of  age, 
Jehoiachin,  known  also  as  Jeconiah,1  inherited 
only  trouble,  and  saw  himself  hemmed  in  by 
a  force  which  must  soon  carry  the  city  by 

1  The  name  occurs  in  three  forms;  see  2  Kings  xxiv,  8;  Jer.  xxii,  24; 
xxiv,  1;  xxvii,  20;  Ezek.  i,  2. 


THE  REIGN  OF  NEBUCHADREZZAR  507 


storming  or  by  starvation.  Jehoiachin,  realiz¬ 
ing  the  hopelessness  of  the  situation,  and  per¬ 
haps  relying  somewhat  on  the  mercy  of  his 
conqueror,  decided  to  surrender  before  an  active 
assault  should  be  undertaken.  He  was  com¬ 
pelled  to  appear  at  Nebuchadrezzar’s  head¬ 
quarters,  with  his  mother  and  his  entire  court, 
to  be  carried  into  captivity.  Besides  this 
Nebuchadrezzar  demanded  the  surrender  of 
seven  thousand  men  capable  of  bearing  arms, 
and  one  thousand  workers  in  iron.  These 
with  their  families  were  carried  away  to  Baby¬ 
lonia,  where  they  were  settled  in  one  great 
block  by  the  river  Chebar,  a  canal  near  Nippur.1 
In  the  place  of  Jehoiachin,  Alattaniah,  another 
son  of  Josiah,  was  made  king,  under  the  name 
of  Zedekiah.2  He  was  but  twenty-one  years 
of  age,  and  was  probably  considered  by  Nebu¬ 
chadrezzar  a  man  who  could  safely  be  trusted 
to  rule  over  the  remnant  of  the  people  who 
were  suffered  to  remain  when  the  better  part 
of  the  inhabitants  had  been  carried  away. 
The  choice  was  unfortunate,  viewed  from  any 
point.  Zedekiah  was  morally  incapable  of 
faithfulness  to  the  Babylonians,  and  that,  if 
for  nothing  else,  because  he  was  too  weak  to 
resist  popular  clamor  and  a  mad  patriotism. 
He  was  not  wise  enough  to  make  himself  and 

1  Babylonian  Expedition  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania ,  ix,  plate  50, 
No.  84,  line  2.  The  text  here  cited  finally  disposes  of  the  question 
of  the  location  of  the  Chebar. 

2  2  Kings  xxiv,  17;  Jer.  xxxvii,  1. 


! 


508  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


his  state  leaders  in  the  counsels  of  the  Syro- 
phoenician  states,  nor  strong  enough  to  make 
any  concert  that  might  be  reached  a  power 
in  troublous  times.  The  policy  he  embraced 
was  alike  fatal  to  all  who  joined  in  it.  It  was, 
however,  apparently  not  of  his  own  devising. 
He  fell  a  prey  to  other  schemers  bent  on  their 
own  purposes.  The  real  wellspring  of  the 
movements  now  to  be  described  is  to  be  found 
in  Egypt. 

Necho  had  failed  in  his  great  plans,  large 
enough  though  they  were  to  do  credit  to  his 
imagination.  His  reign  was  over,  and  in  his 
room  was  Hophra  (Apries).  Soon  after  his 
accession  (589)  he  determined  to  try  to  save 
for  Egypt  some  of  the  fragments  of  Necho' s 
great  dreams.  There  was  no  chance  whatever 
that  he  might  get  possession  of  an}r  of  the 
closer  linked  portions  of  the  old  Assyrian  em¬ 
pire.  These  were  all  irrevocably  possessed  by 
others.  The  new  Chaldean  power  now  reg¬ 
nant  in  Babylon  had  shown  its  power  too 
strongly  in  conquest  to  be  weak  in  defense. 
But  there  were  Syria  and  Palestine;  they  had 
been  Egypt/ s  during  many  a  long  day;  why 
should  they  not  be  restored?  It  was  worth 
the  attempt,  and  the  method  of  its  under¬ 
taking  might  easily  be  copied  from  Necho. 
Hophra  simply  roused  these  states  to  a  con¬ 
certed  rebellion  against  Nebuchadrezzar,  and 
tli is  was  very  probably  accomplished  by  secret 


THE  REIGN  OF  NEBUCHADREZZAR  509 


agents.  It  has  been  seen  in  former  pages  that 
these  Syrophoenician  states  had  blunderingly 
missed  many  a  good  opportunity  for  opposing 
the  progress  of  Assyrian  conquest  in  earlier 
days;  and  it  has  been  equally  clear  that  they 
were  no  less  unfortunate  in  choosing  for  their 
uprisings  many  a  moment  most  unsuitable. 
In  this  latter  they  now  again  erred.  What 
moment  less  auspicious  for  a  rebellion  could 
they  have  chosen  than  this,  in  which  Egypt 
again  spurred  them  on?  Nebuchadrezzar  had 
already  been  in  Palestine.  He  and  his  armies 
knew  the  way  thither.  He  was  surely  estab¬ 
lished  on  his  father’s  throne,  and  had  no  fear 
of  civil  disturbances  in  his  own  kingdom. 
His  power  and  his  severity  were  known  abroad, 
and  there  was  scant  chance  of  any  large  up¬ 
rising  in  the  lands  of  the  upper  Euphrates. 
The  hour  was  ill  chosen,  but  Egypt  had  chosen 
it  and  men  were  found  in  the  foolish  states 
to  follow  Egypt’s  lead.  In  spite  of  its  sore 
sufferings  Judah  was  still  of  wreight  and  im¬ 
portance,  but  Egypt  did  not  approach  it  di¬ 
rectly.  The  aid  of  others  was  first  secured, 
and  these  were  sent  to  rouse  Judah  to  revolt. 

Our  first  knowledge  of  all  these  movements 
is  derived  from  Hebrew  sources,  and  especially 
from  the  book  of  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  him¬ 
self  an  actor  of  commanding  stature  in  the 
whole  sad  drama.  From  his  book  it  appears 
that  the  states  first  planning  to  revolt  were 


510  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


Edom,  Moab,  Ammon,  Tyre,  and  Sidon.1  They 
had  already  determined  upon  revolt,  and  had 
gone  far  enough  in  their  preliminaries  to  have 
joined  in  a  deliberate  unity  before  Judah  was 
approached  at  all.  Whether  this  long  delay 
in  asking  the  cooperation  of  Judah  indicates 
that  this  state  was  now  counted  of  little  or  of 
great  moment  does  not  appear.  The  delay 
would  admit  of  either  interpretation.  At  last 
came  an  embassy  to  Judah,  in  which  all  had 
united,  to  persuade  Zedekiah  to  join  in  a 
rebellion  against  Nebuchadrezzar.  This  em¬ 
bassy  found  a  situation  not  altogether  to  its 
satisfaction.  It  found,  however,  very  much 
that  was  exactly  ready  for  its  labors.  Jeru¬ 
salem  had,  of  course,  a  strong  and  numerous 
patriotic  party  that  hated  the  very  name  of 
Babylonian,  and  believed  that  the  destiny  of 
the  Hebrew  people  must  carry  them  free  of 
any  allegiance  to  any  such  power.  This  party 
had  no  vision  for  the  signs  of  the  times,  no 
memory  for  the  events  of  the  last  few  years, 
and  plainly  not  even  the  slightest  glimpse  into 
the  future.  Its  only  idea  was  that  Jehovah 
was  with  the  Hebrews,  no  matter  what  their 
devotion  to  him  might  be.2  He  had,  indeed, 

1  Jer.  xxvii,  1-3.  This  chapter  begins  in  the  Massoretic  text,  “In 
the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim  the  son  of  Josiah.’’  It  is,  how¬ 
ever,  clear  from  verses  2,  12,  and  20  that  the  text  is  corrupt.  We 
must  either  read  Zedekiah  instead  of  Jehoiakim,  or,  as  is  much  better, 
omit  the  verse  altogether,  as  the  LXX  have  done.  See  Giesebrecht 
on  the  passage. 

2  The  character  of  this  blind  faith  is  shown  in  Jeremiah’s  taunt  uttered 


THE  REIGN  OF  NEBUCHADREZZAR  511 

suffered  the  Babylonian  to  lay  a  heavy  hand 
upon  his  people,  and  many  had  gone  into  cap¬ 
tivity.  But  Jehovah's  temple  still  stood  in 
Jerusalem,  and  there  his  presence  still  was. 
The  superstitious  trust  of  their  ancestors  in 
the  presence  of  the  ark  in  battle  at  Aphek* 1 
was  not  greater  than  their  present  belief  in 
Jehovah,  even  when  his  true  prophets  spoke 
all  the  other  way.  This  party  had  the  ears 
of  all  Jerusalem.  It  was  ever  shouting  pa¬ 
triotism.  Public  opinion  seemed  all  with  it, 
and  always  with  it,  when  the  embassy  came 
to  urge  another  struggle  against  the  new  power. 
But  there  was  another  force  in  the  city,  not 
represented,  perhaps,  in  so  many  followers, 
but  potent  yet,  and  with  all  the  moral  support 
of  recognized  wisdom. 

Jeremiah,  prophet  and  statesman,  took  the 
unpopular  side,  and  advocated  a  policy  of 
unvarying  yielding  to  Babylonia.  In  words 
weighty  of  prescience  he  urged  the  people  of 
Jerusalem  to  accept  the  inevitable  as  of  God's 
doing,  and  to  put  their  necks  submissively 
under  the  yoke  which  he  had  imposed  upon 
them.  This  advice,  once  decisively  taken, 
would  certainly  have  postponed  the  destruc¬ 
tion  to  which  Judah  was  madly  hastening,  if 
it  did  not  save  the  monuments  of  Judah’s 

afterward:  “Where  now  are  your  prophets  which  prophesied  unto  you, 
saying,  The  king  of  Babylon  shall  not  come  against  you,  nor  against 
this  land?”  Jer.  xxxvii,  19. 

1  1  Sam.  iv,  1-1 1. 


512  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


greatness  from  the  ruthless  hand  of  the  de¬ 
stroyer  of  that  age.  But  it  was  not  decisively 
taken.  It  was,  indeed,  too  influential  to  be 
wholly  disregarded,  and  the  embassy  went 
away  without  a  decisive  word  of  adhesion  to 
its  mad  plans.  But  Jeremiah  could  not  con¬ 
trol  the  enraged  populace.  The  air  was  full 
of  rebellion,  of  recrimination,  of  false  patriot¬ 
ism.  Even  the  exiles  in  Babylonia  joined  in 
the  excited  bandying  of  words.1  The  hour 
was  a  bad  one  for  a  wise  and  cautious  man. 
Jeremiah  soon  lost  control;  the  king  was  weak, 
and  could  not  hold  in  check  the  populace  which 
thirsted  in  foolhardiness  for  a  chance  at  its 
oppressors.  Soon  it  became  clear  that  Egypt 
was  to  be  relied  upon  for  help  in  the  effort. 
The  very  name  of  Egypt  was  a  word  to  con¬ 
jure  with,  and  its  greatness  seemed  even  yet 
to  fill  the  whole  earth.  Rebellion  was  declared; 
and  now  the  end  had  almost  come  for  liberty 
in  the  west  land.  The  new  rebellion  seemed 
to  Nebuchadrezzar  a  matter  of  small  moment. 
He  did  not  come  at  once  in  person,  but  sent 
an  army,  which  appeared  before  the  walls  of 
Jerusalem  in  587.  The  city  was  so  situated 
and  so  defended  by  walls  that  its  reduction 
was  no  easy  task.  To  carry  it  by  assault  was 
quite  impossible,  and  Nebuchadrezzar,  as  Titus 
in  later  days,  determined  to  surround  the  walls 
and  starve  it  into  submission.  The  sight  of 


1  Jer.  xxvii,  xxix. 


THE  REIGN  OF  NEBUCHADREZZAR  513 


the  Babylonian  forces  drawing  a  tight  cord 
about  the  city  walls  might  have  been  expected 
to  strike  sudden  terror  into  the  hearts  of  the 
war  party  which  had  driven  the  nation  to  this 
pass.  In  this  the  expected  did  not  happen.  The 
people  of  Jerusalem  were  mad  in  their  folly,  but 
they  were  not  cowards,  and  they  began  a  vigor¬ 
ous  resistance  to  the  great  king.  The  walls  of 
Jerusalem  were  strong  enough  to  afford  defense 
for  a  long  time,  and  Nebuchadrezzar  was  not 
provided  in  the  beginning  with  artillery  strong 
enough  to  break  them  down  and  so  take  the  city 
by  assault.  It  could  apparently  be  taken  only 
by  a  siege  in  which  famine  should  aid  force. 

There  was  terror  in  the  city,  but  determina¬ 
tion,  and  the  spirit  was  admirable,  when  the 
odds  are  considered,  even  at  so  great  a  dis¬ 
tance  from  the  events  as  this.  It  was  probably 
chiefly  the  hope  of  help  from  Egypt  that 
strengthened  the  hearts  and  hands  of  the 
besieged.  This  help  was  not  to  fail  utterly, 
for  while  the  siege  was  yet  in  its  early  progress 
the  army  of  Pharaoh  Hophra  entered  Pal¬ 
estine,  with  the  direct  purpose  of  offering  help 
to  the  besieged,  and  of  so  raising  the  siege, 
and  of  ultimately  driving  back  the  Babylonians. 
This  was  partly  accomplished.  The  Baby¬ 
lonian  army  withdrew  from  the  gates  and  went 
southward  to  meet  the  new  and  formidable 
foe.  What  a  reaction  of  joy  was  produced  by 
this  sudden  reversal  of  fortune  will  perhaps 


514  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


never  be  fully  known.  The  party  that  had 
brought  on  the  war  must  have  felt  that  its 
hour  of  justification  had  fully  come.  The 
false  prophets,  as  Jeremiah  had  stigmatized 
them,  who  had  prophesied  that  in  a  short 
time  the  Chaldean  power  would  come  to  a 
sudden  and  violent  end,  must  have  pointed 
to  the  withdrawing  hosts  as  the  first  sign  of 
the  impending  fulfillment  of  their  predictions. 
Amid  all  this  rejoicing  Jeremiah  alone  main¬ 
tained  his  serenity  of  mind  and  his  clearness 
of  vision.  He  could  not  deny  that  a  change 
had  indeed  come;  that  was  plain  to  any  eye, 
but  it  was  only  temporary.  Amid  jubilations 
his  word  sounds  solemn  and  disquieting:  “Thus 
saith  the  Lord:  Deceive  not  yourselves,  saying, 
The  Chaldeans  shall  surely  depart  from  us : 
for  they  shall  not  depart.  For  though  ye  had 
smitten  the  whole  army  of  the  Chaldeans  that 
fight  against  you,  and  there  remained  but 
wounded  men  among  them,  }^et  should  they 
rise  up  every  man  in  his  tent,  and  burn  this 
city  with  fire.”1  To  those  who  trusted  in 
Hophra  his  word  was  no  less  definite:  “Behold, 
Pharaoh’s  army,  which  is  come  forth  to  help 
you,  shall  return  to  Egypt  into  their  own  land. 
And  the  Chaldeans  shall  come  again,  and 
fight  against  this  city;  and  they  shall  take  it, 
and  burn  it  with  fire.”2  It  could  not  be  ex- 


1  Jer.  xxxvii,  9,  10. 

2  Jer.  xxxvii,  7,  8. 


THE  REIGN  OE  NEBUCHADREZZAR  515 

pected  that  a  message  of  that  tenor  in  an 
hour  of  apparent  triumph  and  of  real  hope 
would  be  welcomed.  It  was,  of  course,  not 
believed.  Every  indication  of  the  hour  was 
against  faith  in  it.  Hatred  of  Jeremiah  and 
doubt  of  his  loyalty  grew  apace.  He  essayed 
to  leave  the  city  to  care  for  his  property  in 
Benjamin.  It  was  at  once  suspected  that  he 
intended  to  desert  to  the  foe,  and  give  his  aid 
and  counsel  to  the  Chaldeans.  He  was  there¬ 
fore  apprehended  and  thrown  into  prison,  there 
to  await  the  ruin  which  he  had  foreseen.1 

Such  were  the  scenes  of  joy  and  the  emo¬ 
tions  of  doubt  which  had  sway  in  the  city. 
What  were  the  opinions  of  the  Babylonians 
we  have  scant  means  for  judging.  It  is  not 
improbable  that  they  counted  the  taking  of 
Jerusalem  as  a  matter  of  importance  to  their 
newly  founded  empire.  The  history  of  Assyria 
w^as  not  wholly  unknown  to  these  new  agitators, 
and  they  must  have  understood  how  trouble¬ 
some  a  thorn  Jerusalem  had  been  in  the  western 
side  of  the  empire  of  the  Sargonides.  They 
now  wished  to  end  this  difficulty  at  the  begin¬ 
ning  of  their  own  plans.  But  they  seem  not 
to  have  thought  highly  of  the  prowess  in  war 
of  the  nations  of  Syria.  If  they  had  estimated 
highly  the  other  states  of  Tyre  and  Sidon, 
they  would  hardly  have  pushed  by  them  to 
attack  Jerusalem,  while  they  were  left  free  to 


1  Jer.  xxxvii,  11-15. 


516  HISTOKY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


attack  the  flank  or  rear.  Furthermore,  they 
would  not  have  left  Jerusalem  itself  without 
a  guard  to  hold  it  in  check  and  prevent  an 
attack,  while  they  were  engaged  with  the 
Egyptians.  It  is  a  pity  that  the  historiographers 
of  the  Chaldean  empire  were  so  completely 
given  to  the  description  of  various  building 
an d  restoring  operations  as  not  to  have  left 
for  us  an  account  of  this  campaign  from  their 
point  of  view.  That  it  would  ring  loud  with 
boasts  of  victory  might  be  expected.  Between 
its  lines,  however,  could  perhaps  be  read  the 
real  motives  and  the  true  purposes  and  intent 
of  some  of  these  movements.  Without  such 
records  we  may  only  follow  the  events  further 
as  the  Hebrews  have  preserved  memory  of  them. 

The  army  of  the  Babylonians  met  the  Egyp¬ 
tian  army  at  some  unknown  point  south  of 
Jerusalem  and  drove  it  back  to  Egypt,  appar¬ 
ently  without  great  difficulty.1  But  it  did  not 
follow  up  the  advantage  thus  gained.  As 
affairs  then  were  in  Egypt,  Nebuchadrezzar, 
with  a  good  army,  might  have  overrun  the 
whole  land,  as  Esarhaddon  had  done  before 
him,  and  have  perhaps  made  it  a  part  of  his 
new  empire.  But,  as  we  shall  see  later,  Nebu¬ 
chadrezzar  was  not  in  person  at  the  head  of 
his  army;  the  army  was  probably  not  large, 
and  so  great  an  extension  of  its  operations, 

1  Josephus  ( Antiquities ,  x,  7,  §  3)  declares  that  the  Egyptians  were 
defeated,  but  Jeremiah  (xxxvii,  7),  on  whom  he  was  doubtless  leaning, 
says  nothing  of  a  defeat, 


THE  REIGN  OF  NEBUCHADREZZAR  517 


leaving  states  and  people  unconquered  behind, 
would  have  been  precarious.  At  this  time 
the  Babylonians  had  done  all  that  was  desired 
for  present  purposes  in  compelling  Hophra’s 
return  to  Egypt,  where  he  was  suffered  to 
reign  in  peace  for  several  years  longer.  He 
would  not  again  endeavor  to  help  his  allies 
in  Syria  and  Palestine.  They  would  be  left 
to  their  fate.  Egypt  was  again  proved  a  broken 
reed  on  which  to  lean.1 

As  soon  as  the  menace  of  the  Egyptian  army 
of  deliverance  from  Jerusalem  had  been  re¬ 
moved  the  army  of  beleaguers  returned  to  the 
sacred  city.  With  increased  energy  and  de¬ 
termination  was  the  siege  prosecuted,  but  the 
defense  continued  bold  and  brave.  Within 
the  city  there  was,  however,  no  disciplined  and 
well-armed  body  of  men  capable  of  making 
a  successful  sally  against  the  veterans  whom 
Nebuchadrezzar  had  collected  from  many  prov¬ 
inces.  If  this  could  have  been  done,  and 
fresh  supplies  thus  introduced,  the  siege  might 
have  been  indefinitely  prolonged.  Famine2 
lent  aid  to  the  army  of  the  siege,  and  the  de¬ 
fense  grew  weaker.  When  the  way  was  clear 
for  the  successful  assault  the  Babylonian  general 
in  command  ordered  it,  and  a  breach  was  made 
in  the  walls.  On  the  ninth  day  of  the  fourth 
month  (July),  in  the  year  586,  the  Chaldeans, 

1  Isa.  xxxvi,  6. 

2  Presumably  pestilence  likewise  added  to  the  terror  of  the  situation. 
Compare  Jer.  xxxviii,  2i 


518  HISTORY  OR  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


furious  with  delay,  poured  through  the  walls 
of  Hezekiah  into  the  city.  Zedekiah  fled  at 
night,  leaving  all  behind  him.  The  courage 
which  had  sustained  the  siege  was  plainly 
not  his;  his  only  idea  was  to  save  himself  by 
flight,  probably  into  the  wilds  beyond  Jordan, 
for  in  that  direction  his  fleeing  steps  were 
turned,  and  then  later,  when  the  Babylonian 
army  had  withdrawn,  to  return  and  save 
something  from  the  wreck.1  The  Babylonians 
were  too  shrewd  to  permit  so  transparent  a 
scheme  to  reach  fulfillment,  and  gave  pursuit. 
So  long  as  the  king,  lawfully  so  appointed, 
w^as  free  there  was  some  chance  of  a  fresh  re¬ 
bellion,  as  soon  as  the  necessities  of  their 
growing  empire  should  give  call  to  the  armies 
elsewhere.  Zedekiah  was  overtaken  in  the 
plains  of  Jericho  and  captured.2  His  captors 
did  not  return  him  to  Jerusalem,  but  carried 
him  off  to  Riblah,  in  Syria,  to  present  him  be¬ 
fore  the  person  of  Nebuchadrezzar.  It  now 
appears  that  Nebuchadrezzar  was  not  present 
at  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  at  all,  but  retained 
personal  command  at  Riblah,  and  very  probably 
of  a  larger  body  of  troops  than  was  utilized 
in  the  investment  of  the  Jewish  capital. 
Whether  the  body  of  troops  under  his  command 
was  actively  engaged  against  other  Syrophce- 
nician  states  at  this  time  is  not  clearly  known. 

1  The  explanation  of  Zedekiah’s  purposes  is  due  to  a  conjecture  of 
Tiele,  Geschichte,  ii,  431. 

2  2  Kings  xxv,  4,  5. 


THE  REIGN  OF  NEBUCHADREZZAR  519 


Nebuchadrezzar  would  not  be  likely  to  hold 
a  large  body  of  men  in  idleness  for  a  long  time, 
even  if  it  were  a  military  possibility.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  have  no  sign  in  the  materials 
now  accessible  to  us  of  any  great  movements1 
of  his  while  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  was  in 
progress.  That  he  did  not  attack  Tyre  nor 
Sidon  until  after  Jerusalem  was  taken  seems 
clear,  and  we  know  of  no  other  people  sufficiently 
strong  to  resist  a  large  army,  who  were  now 
in  rebellion.  It  may  therefore  well  be  that 
Nebuchadrezzar  with  his  forces  had  been  chiefly 
occupied  in  widely  extended  plundering  raids. 
So  soon  as  Zedekiah  was  presented  before 
Nebuchadrezzar  the  judgment  was  given  against 
him.  His  sons  were  slain  before  his  eyes,  and 
he  was  then  blinded — that  his  last  sight  of 
earth  might  be  one  of  horror.  It  is  not  sur¬ 
prising  that  condign  punishment  should  be 
his,  when  the  circumstances  are  considered. 
When  made  king  by  the  Chaldeans  he  had 
sworn  faithfulness  to  them  in  the  name  of 
his  own  God,  Yahwe.2  He  had  broken  that 
oath — the  most  solemn  oath  which  could  have 
been  placed  before  him.  But  the  savage  form 
of  his  punishment  is  for  the  moment  interesting. 

1  It  was  probably  at  this  time  that  Nebuchadrezzar  cut  cedar  beams 
in  the  Lebanon  and  reduced  the  inhabitants  to  subjection.  See  Pog- 
non,  Les  Inscriptions  Babyloniennes  du  Wadi  Brissa,  especially  pp. 
20-22,  120-126.  Compare  also  Winckler,  Altorientalische  Forschungen, 
i,  pp.  604-506,  and  Maspero,  The  Passing  of  the  Empires,  New  York, 
1900,  p.  543,  footnote. 

2  Ezek.  xvii,  11-21. 


520  HISTOBY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


That  shows  a  new  hand  in  the  dominion  of 
Babylonia.  Such  savagery1  would  be  expected 
in  an  Assyrian  king.  It  was  rather  unusual 
in  a  Babylonian  king,  and  its  appearance  now 
is  in  connection  with  a  Chaldean.  In  that  is 
there  a  showing  forth  of  a  new  people.  It 
seems  a  promise  that  the  Chaldean  would 
not  be  merciful,  as  the  Babylonian  had  so 
often  been  in  the  past. 

While  Zedekiah  was  in  flight  the  army  of 
the  Babylonians  had  entered  the  city.  The 
breach  in  the  walls  was  made  in  the  eleventh 
3^ear  of  his  reign2  on  the  ninth  day  of  the 
fourth  month  (July,  586),  after  a  siege  lasting 
about  one  and  a  half  years.  The  patience  of 
the  conquerors  was  exhausted.  They  had 
tried  before  to  secure  a  stable  condition  of 
affairs,  which  the  people  of  Jerusalem  had 
ruthlessly  broken.  They  had  spent  this  long 
period  in  a  wearisome  siege.  They  would  now 
end  all  possibility  of  a  future  like  the  past 
by  utterly  destroying  the  offending  city.  It 
was  first  plundered  for  the  enrichment  of  the 
successful  army,  and  the  gold,  silver,  and  brass 
of  the  temple  decorations,  with  all  the  vessels 

1  Our  modern  judgments  are  not  based  on  the  same  premises  as  the 
ancient.  The  Assyrians  would  undoubtedly  have  put  Zedekiah  to 
death  after  horrible  torture  or  by  mutilation.  It  is  possible  that  we 
ought  to  consider  this  blinding  to  be  merciful  punishment,  when  we 
remember  that  even  modern  Orientals  do  not  estimate  vision  so  highly 
as  Occidentals.  Egyptian  fellahin  blinded  themselves  to  avoid  con¬ 
scription  under  Mohammed  Ali. 

2  Jer.  xxxix,  2. 


THE  REIGN  OF  NEBUCHADREZZAR 


521 


of  its  service,  were  removed  to  be  dedicated 
to  Marduk  in  Babylon.  Nothing  of  value  was 
forgotten,  that  Yah  we  might  pay  full  tribute 
to  the  conquering  Marduk.  Then  the  torch 
was  applied,  and  the  temple,  center  of  such 
affection  and  hope,  became  a  mass  of  black- 
ened  ruins.  Then  the  rich  parts  of  the  city 
were  likewise  destroyed,  and  its  walls  of  de¬ 
fense,  which  had  rendered  such  valiant  service, 
were  razed  to  the  ground.  It  was  an  act  of 
barbarism,  like  unto  the  oft-repeated  deeds  of 
the  Assyrians  and  unlike  the  custom  of  the 
Babylonians.1  Like  the  punishment  of  Zed™ 
ekiah,  this  also  displayed  the  new  hand  in 
the  affairs  of  men — the  hand  of  the  Chaldean. 

Of  the  population  of  the  ruined  city  a  large 
number — how  large  we  do  not  know — were 
carried  away  captive  to  Babylonia.2  The  cap¬ 
tives,  as  before,  were  chosen  from  the  richest 
and  best  of  the  population.  The  poor,3  the 
weak,  were  left  behind,  and  a  wise  and  generous 
provision  was  made  for  them.  They  were  to 
receive  land  for  the  cultivation  of  the  vine, 

1  The  Babylonians  did  not  even  share  in  the  destruction  of  the  hated 
city  of  Nineveh,  which  had  so  sorely  punished  Babylon  itself  in  earlier 
days. 

2  It  is  interesting  to  speculate  upon  the  number  of  the  Judaeans  who 
were  exiled  in  all  the  invasions  of  Nebuchadrezzar.  The  latest  com¬ 
putation  is  by  Guthe  ( Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  pp.  236,  237,  in  the 
third  ed.,  pp.  206,  267),  who  reckons  the  total  number  at  thirty-six 
thousand  to  forty-eight  thousand,  which  he  counts  as  a  quarter  or  an 
eighth  of  the  total  population. 

3  “But  Nebuzaradan  the  captain  of  the  guard  left  of  the  poorest 
of  the  land  to  be  vinedressers  and  husbandmen.”  Jer.  lii,  16. 


m  History  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria 

and  were  to  be  left  to  the  unhindered  pursuit 
of  their  religion.  A  descendant  of  the  house 
of  David,  by  name  Gedaliah,  was  appointed 
governor/  and  to  him  the  person  of  Jeremiah 
was  intrusted.  The  prophet  was  to  be  left- 
free  to  go  and  to  do  as  he  willed,  and  was 
evidently  regarded  by  the  Chaldeans  not  as  a 
Hebrew  patriot,  but  rather  as  a  Chaldean 
sympathizer.  It  was  probably  the  purpose 
of  the  Chaldeans  to  give  the  land  a  stable 
government  and  a  full  opportunity  for  the 
development  of  its  resources.  Under  favorable 
conditions  it  would  doubtless  soon  be  able 
to  pay  a  good  tribute  and  so  add  to  the  wealth 
of  the  empire.  This  purpose,  however,  failed 
of  early  accomplishment,  for  the  few  and  feeble 
folk  left  under  the  rule  of  Gedaliah  were  not 
able  to  maintain  any  sure  defense  of  their 
present  position.  Another  descendant  of  the 
Davidic  house,  with  the  surprising  name  of 
Ishmael,  plotted  against  Gedaliah.  Ishmael 
found  a  helper  in  the  Ammonites,  who  may 
have  feared  that  the  people  of  Judah  would 
again  form  a  strong  state,  and  were  anxious 
to  nip  the  effort  in  the  bud.  Ishmael  slew 
Gedaliah  and  many  of  his  helpers,1 2  and  so 
destroyed  the  last  hope  of  the  national  cohe¬ 
sion.  The  paltry  few  who  now  remain  are  in 
terror  before  Nebuchadrezzar  and  in  fear  of 

1  2  Kings  xxv,  22;  Jer.  xl,  5-7. 

2  Jer.  xl,  13-xli,  15. 


THE  REIGN  OF  NEBUCHADREZZAR  523 

their  neighbors.  There  is  no  hope  for  them 
in  the  land,  and  they  determine  to  emigrate 
to  Egypt.  With  them  Jeremiah  cast  in  his 
lot,  and  into  another  land  the  poor  remains 
of  a  once  powerful  kingdom  departed.1 

So  ended  the  campaign  of  Nebuchadrezzar 
against  Judah.  The  province  was  left  stripped 
of  its  inhabitants,  wasted  by  armies,  and  burned 
in  flames.  A  more  ruinous  end  of  a  campaign 
has  rarely  been  seen  in  human  history.  Even 
from  the  Chaldean  point  of  view  the  punish¬ 
ment  of  Zedekiah  and  of  his  people  was  greatly 
overdone.  If  the  new  Babylon  was  to  become 
rich,  it  could  gain  wealth  as  the  Assyrians 
had  done,  not  only  by  plunder,  but  by  care¬ 
fully  gathered  annual  tributes.  From  Judah 
in  the  state  to  which  it  was  now  come  no  tribute 
could  be  expected.  From  it  no  levies  of  men 
of  war  to  fight  for  the  extension  of  Chaldean 
power  could  be  drawn.  It  was  a  wasted  land, 
and  in  it  a  great  opportunity  had  been  lost 
through  savage  hate  and  perhaps  through 
fear  of  future  Egyptian  intrigue. 

In  this  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
deportation  of  another  portion  of  its  inhabi¬ 
tants  is  found  the  culmination  of  a  long  series 
of  efforts  directed  against  the  Hebrews  by 
the  peoples  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria.  From 
the  days  of  Hammurapi  down  to  this  dark 
end  again  and  again  have  Babylonian  kings 


12  Kings  xxv,  26;  Jer.  xli,  1618;  xlii;  xliii,  1-7. 


524  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


plundered  and  punished  and  at  times  admin¬ 
istered  in  this  land  and  among  this  people. 
Early  in  their  career  of  conquest  tfye  Assyrian 
kings  began  the  same  process.  For  them  it 
was  reserved  to  blot  out  the  northern  kingdom 
of  the  Hebrews  in  the  days  of  Shalmaneser 
and  Sargon.  The  early  Babylonians,  however, 
never  achieved  a  permanent  victory  over  them. 
To  the  Chaldeans,  their  heirs,  was  this  given. 
Wherein  all  his  predecessors  had  failed  Nebu¬ 
chadrezzar  had  succeeded.  The  success  was 
lamentable,  though  the  final  issue  of  it  all 
was  better  than  this  hour  presaged.  Many 
a  people  had  been  swallowed  up  in  the  advance 
of  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  power  and  for¬ 
ever  lost.  Even  empires  once  distinguished  for 
power  and  civilization  had  so  thoroughly  dis¬ 
appeared  in  the  vortex  as  to  leave  scarcely 
a  distinguishable  sign  of  their  former  existence. 
This  was  not  to  be  true  in  the  case  of  Judah. 
The  Hebrew  had  ideas  that  could  not  be 
quenched,  and  these  carried  his  person  into 
a  life  that  would  not  die  among  men.  The 
Chaldean  had  destroyed  the  state,  but  the 
people  lived  on  in  activity.  The  songs  of 
Zion  might  not  be  sung,1  but  the  words  of 
Zion  might  be  spoken.  The  Hebrew  would 
not  now  pay  tribute  in  the  land  of  Judah, 
but  would  take  tribute  even  of  his  captors  as 
he  pushed  successfully  forward  into  business 


1  Psa.  exxxvii,  4. 


THE  REIGN  OF  NEBUCHADREZZAR  525 


in  his  new  home.  His  wise  leader,  Jeremiah, 
had  counseled  him  to  make  the  new  land  his 
home  in  the  fullest  sense:  “Build  ye  houses, 
and  dwell  in  them;  and  plant  gardens,  and 
eat  the  fruit  of  them;  take  ye  wives,  and  beget 
sons  and  daughters;  and  take  wives  for  your 
sons,  and  give  your  daughters  to  husbands, 
that  they  may  bear  sons  and  daughters;  and 
multiply  ye  there,  and  be  not  diminished.  And 
seek  the  peace  of  the  city^  whither  I  have  caused 
you  to  be  carried  away  captive,  and  pray  unto 
the  Lord  for  it:  for  in  the  peace  thereof  shall 
ye  have  peace.”1  The  advice  was  followed.2 
Nebuchadrezzar  had  gained  a  new  factor  in 
his  composite  population,  though  he  had  lost 
a  rich  province. 

As  soon  as  the  war  against  Judah  was  ended 
Nebuchadrezzar  turned  his  arms  against  Tyre. 
The  great  commercial  city  had  joined  with 
Sidon  in  the  embassy  which  induced  Judah 
to  rebel  against  him.3  Tyre  was  probably 
the  chief  sinner,  after  Egypt,  in  this  whole 
matter.  It  had  more  at  stake  in  its  overland 
commerce  to  the  east,  upon  which  its  sea¬ 
going  commerce  was  dependent,  than  any 
of  the  others.  Tyre  would  fain  make  another 

1  Jer.  xxix,  5-7. 

2  The  discoveries  of  the  expedition  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 
at  Nippur  have  shown  how  largely  Jews  entered  into  the  business  life 
of  Babylonia.  See  The  Babylonian  Expedition  of  the  University  of 
Pennsylvania,  edited  by  H.  V.  Hilprecht,  vol.  ix,  and  compare  the 
review  by  Jensen,  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyrioloyie,  xiii,  pp.  329-336. 

3  See  above,  pp.  509,  510. 


526  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


attempt  to  gain  back  the  commerce  of  which 
the  Assyrians  had  gone  far  to  deprive  it,  and 
for  which  they  had  struggled  so  long.  Tyre 
would  now  be  brought  to  answer  for  its  new 
attempt  at  rebellion.  In  the  case  of  Tyre, 
however,  Nebuchadrezzar  had  an  entirely  differ¬ 
ent  problem  from  that  which  he  had  success¬ 
fully  met  in  Judah.  Its  people  indeed  were 
not  more  brave  than  the  people  of  Jerusalem; 
on  the  contrary,  their  whole  history  would 
show  that  they  were  much  less  so.  Not  in 
person  but  in  position  did  they  possess  a  pre¬ 
eminence  over  their  fellow-conspirators.  Jeru¬ 
salem  was  surrounded  by  hills,  and,  though 
well  fortified,  as  its  resistance  showed,  it  was 
approachable  on  every  side.  Tyre,  on  the 
other  hand,  was  founded  upon  the  sea,  and  it 
was  impossible  for  a  land  force  alone  to  besiege 
it  successfully.  No  matter  how  completely  it 
was  invested  by  land,  provisions  could  always 
be  introduced  from  the  sea.  The  Chaldeans 
were  no  more  familiar  with  the  sea  than  the 
Assyrians  or  Babylonians1  had  been,  and  were 
no  more  able  or  willing  to  venture  upon  it. 

1  It  is  not  intended  to  assert  that  the  Babylonians  had  no  ships,  but 
simply  that  they  were  not  seamen.  Herodotus  (i,  194)  and  Sennacherib 
(Taylor  Cylinder,  col.  iii,  lines  55,  56,  Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series, 
vi,  p.  92)  witness  to  their  possession  and  use  of  ships.  The  English 
versions  of  Isa.  xliii,  14,  “the  Chaldeans,  whose  cry  is  in  the  ships” 
(A.  V.),  and  “the  Chaldeans,  in  the  ships  of  their  rejoicing”  (R.  V.), 
give  a  totally  false  impression,  if  they  seem  to  make  the  Chaldeans 
a  seafaring  folk,  for  so  the  passage  is  often  quoted.  The  text  is  quite 
likely  corrupt.  See  Cheyne  and  especially  Marti  ( Das  Buck  Jesaija, 
p.  297)  on  the  passage. 


THE  REIGN  OF  NEBUCHADREZZAR  527 

Nebuchadrezzar  had  no  seaport  on  the  Mediter¬ 
ranean  in  complete  possession,  from  which 
he  could  send  forth  a  fleet  to  besiege  Tyre  4 
from  the  sea,  and  he  had  no  fleet  with  which 
to  do  this  even  if  he  had  had  the  port  of 
departure.  The  issue  of  the  attempt  which 
Nebuchadrezzar  was  now  to  make  was  prob¬ 
lematical  indeed.  But  Tyre  must  be  punished 
or  his  empire  might  be  assailed  again  in  a  twelve- 
month,  even  though  Judah  had  been  so  terribly 
handled.  In  585  Nebuchadrezzar  led  his  army 
against  Tyre  and  began  a  siege.  It  was  a 
long  and  tedious  enterprise.  For  thirteen  years1 
the  Chaldeans  held  on  their  investment  (585- 
573),  unable  to  take  the  city.  Unfortunately 
there  is  no  account  of  this  siege  in  any  of 
Nebuchadrezzar’s  own  inscriptions,  and  we 
must  gain  such  insight  into  the  affair  as  is 
possible  from  the  fragmentary  pieces  of  in¬ 
formation  at  second  or  third  hand  which  have 
come  down  from  other  sources.2  From  these 
it  is  quite  clear  that  the  city  was  not  taken 
by  the  Babylonians  at  all.  An  end  to  the 
long  contest  was  finally  made  by  a  capitula¬ 
tion  similar  to  those  which  Tyre  had  made 
before  in  the  case  of  the  Assyrians.  The  people 

Josephus,  Arch.,  xi,  11,  1,  and  Con.  Ap.,  i,  2,  1. 

2  Compare  Tiele,  Geschichte,  ii,  p.  433,  n.  In  a  contract  tablet  dated 
in  Tyre  “month  Tammuz,  day  22d,  year  40th  Nebuchadnezzar,  king 
of  Babylon,”  there  is  evidence  of  Babylonian  supremacy  over  Tyre. 

See  Records  of  the  Past,  New  Series,  iv,  pp.  99-100,  and  Sajrce  in  Ex¬ 
pository  Times,  June,  1899,  p.  430.  Nothing  can  be  made  out  of  Euse¬ 
bius,  Chron.,  i,  51;  Justin,  xviii,  3;  and  Strabo,  xv,  1,  6. 


528  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


of  Tyre  were  not  careful  for  national  pride. 
They  desired  most  of  all  to  be  let  alone,  for 
the  continuing  of  their  peaceful  pursuit  of 
trade.  Ethobal  II  was  now  king  of  Tyre,  and 
he  was  willing  to  make  terms  with  Nebuchad¬ 
rezzar,  which  involved,  probably,  the  payment 
of  a  tribute,  and  little  more.1  Ethobal  con¬ 
tinued  to  rule  his  city  under  a  sort  of  Assyrian 
tutelage.  Tyre  was  not  given  to  the  sword, 
burned,  or  plundered,  and  Nebuchadrezzar  had 
but  little  to  pride  himself  upon  in  this  cam¬ 
paign,  years  of  time  though  it  had  cost 

In  the  year  567  Nebuchadrezzar  began  an¬ 
other  and  even  more  important  undertaking, 
and  this  against  Egypt.  It  was  Egypt  which 
had  caused  all  this  loss  of  time  and  men  and 
treasure  to  Nebuchadrezzar.  So  long  as  Egypt 
was  suffered  to  remain  as  it  was,  or  permitted 
to  increase  in  power,  so  long  would  Palestine 
and  Syria  remain  open  to  sudden  raid  or  to 
slow-maturing  intrigue.  Egypt  must  be  pun¬ 
ished  for  past  intrigues,  for  the  army  sent 
to  help  Zedekiah,  and  must  at  the  same  time 
be  deprived  of  the  power  of  making  any  similar 
trouble  for  some  time  to  come. 

Nebuchadrezzar  had  driven  Hophra  and  his 
army  back  into  Egypt,  but  he  did  not  pursue, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  his  advantage  any 
further  at  this  time.  Whether  he  made  anv 
further  assaults  between  that  event  and  the 


1  Menander,  Frag.  2,  in  Muller-Didot,  Frag.  Hist.  Graec,  iv,  p.  447. 


THE  REIGN  OF  NEBUCHADREZZAR  529 


thirty-seventh  year  of  his  reign  is  not  known 
to  us,  as  our  sources  of  information  are  silent 
on  the  matter.  Whether  he  did  or  did  not, 
Egypt  remained  quiet  until  his  time  for  retri¬ 
bution  had  come.  Hophra  had  suffered  a  terrible 
defeat  in  Libya,  out  of  which  had  come  dynastic 
difficulties.1  He  had  even  been  compelled  to 
associate  on  the  throne  with  himself  as  coregent 
Amasis,  as  a  representative  of  the  national 
Egyptian  party.  After  a  defeat  in  arms  against 
another  power,  and  after  some  sort  of  civil 
strife  in  which  the  land  received  a  second  king, 
Egypt  was  in  nowise  prepared  for  the  in¬ 
vasion. 

In  569  Hophra  died  and  Amasis  was  left 
in  full  possession  of  the  titles  as  well  as  of 
supreme  power  in  Egypt.  Upon  him  fell  also 
the  responsibility  of  meeting  the  assault  which 
Nebuchadrezzar  had  now  prepared  to  make. 
We  know  nothing  of  the  campaign  save  for 
the  bare  statement  of  Nebuchadrezzar  in  a 
badty  broken  text  that  he  accomplished  the 
defeat  of  Amasis  and  his  allies.2  How  far 


1  Herodotus,  iv,  cl-clxi. 

2  Two  small  fragmentary  tablets  in  the  British  Museum,  first  pub¬ 
lished  by  Pinches,  Transactions  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology , 
vii,  pp.  210-225.  Published  also,  with  additions  by  Strassmaier,  Baby- 
lonische  Texte,  vi,  No.  329.  Translated  by  Schrader,  Keilinschriftlichc 
Bibliothefc,  iii,  2,  pp.  140,  141,  and  by  Langdon,  Building  Inscriptions 
of  the  Neo-Babylonian  Empire ,  part  i,  pp.  180-183,  and  Die  Neubaby- 
lonischen  Konigsinchriften,  pp.  206,  207 ;  compare  also  p.  44.  It  is 
also  to  be  found  in  Rogers,  Cuneiform  Parallels,  p.  367.  For  the  his¬ 
torical  content  see  Winekler,  Die  EuphratUindcr  und  das  Mittclmccr, 
Alle  Orient,  7th  year,  No.  2,  pp.  30,  31. 


530  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


he  penetrated  into  the  country  is  entirely 
unknown  to  us.  The  Chaldeans  appear  to  have 
had  a  tradition1  that  he  turned  Egypt  into  a 
Babylonian  province,  after  he  had  conquered 
Amasis.  We  have,  however,  no  definite  informa¬ 
tion  which  would  lead  us  to  believe  that  he 
wrought  so  great  a  revolution.  To  repeat  the 
Assyrian  exploit  of  Esarhaddon  was  hardly  to 
be  expected  of  Nebuchadrezzar. 

He  had  undoubtedly  plundered  largely,  and  was 
now  ready  to  return  laden  with  booty.  He  had 
further  shown  his  power  to  the  people  of  Egypt, 
as  he  went  unopposed  along  the  whole  course 
of  their  former  possessions  in  Syria,  and  they 
would  not  be  easily  led  into  a  violation  of 
his  territory.  Nebuchadrezzar  attempted  noth¬ 
ing  more  in  Egypt.  He  did  not  go  on  to  make 
it  a  part  of  his  empire,  as  Esarhaddon  had 
done,  nor  does  he  appear  to  have  in  any  way 
interfered  with  the  native  rulers.  If  his  reign 
had  continued  longer,  it  is  altogether  probable 
that  Egypt  would  have  again  been  the  scene 
of  his  operations,  to  plunder  and  perhaps 
attempt  to  rule. 

The  campaign  against  Egypt  was  prob¬ 
ably  the  last  which  Nebuchadrezzar  undertook 
against  any  people.  The  attempt  has  been 
made  to  show  that  he  also  made  a  campaign 
against  Elam.  This  is  based  only  upon  the 

1  Josephus,  Ant.  Jud.,  x,  9,  §  7;  11,  §  1.  The  authority  for  the  view 
of  Josephus  was  Berossos,  but  we  do  not  know  how  much  Berossos 
may  have  suffered  in  the  process  of  transmission. 


THE  EEIGN  OE  NEBUCHADREZZAR  531 


passage  in  Jeremiah’s  prophecies1  in  which  he 
predicts  a  day  of  wrath  and  destruction  for 
this  people.  He  does  not,  however,  mention 
the  name  of  the  king  who  was  to  accomplish 
this  punishment  of  Elam.  There  is  not  known 
to  us  any  reason  which  should  have  induced 
Nebuchadrezzar  to  undertake  such  a  campaign, 
neither  do  we  find  a  chronological  position  for 
it  in  his  reign.  It  is,  from  present  knowledge, 
improbable  that  he  did  make  war  against  his 
neighbor. 

The  campaigns  of  Nebuchadrezzar  appear 
few  and  small  as  we  look  at  them  in  comparison 
with  those  of  Tiglathpileser  IV,  Sargon,  and 
Esarhaddon.  Other  campaigns,  yet  unknown 
to  us,  he  probably  waged,  for  he  could  other¬ 
wise  hardly  have  held  and  extended  the  empire 
of  Nabopolassar.  But  whether  he  waged  others 
or  not,  his  title  to  rank  among  the  greatest 
warriors  who  ever  ruled  in  Babylonia  or  Assyria 
can  hardly  be  denied.  His  exploits  are  not  so 
well  known;  his  own  inscriptions  have  not 
spread  them  before  us  in  such  elaboration  of 
detail  as  did  those  of  former  kings,  and  this 
absence  of  a  fully  rounded  picture  makes  them 
seem  less  important  than  they  really  are.  If 
judged  not  only  by  what  we  know  of  them, 

1  Jer.  xlix,  34-38.  As  to  the  question  of  the  interpolation  of  this 
passage  see  Giesebrecht.  It  is  perhaps  worth  noting  that  Koberle  ac¬ 
cepts  the  passage,  and  that  Cornill  finds  at  least  a  genuine  nucleus  in 
it.  Peake  speaks  rather  doubtfully,  but  on  the  whole  defends  it,  though 
apparently  inclined  to  ascribe  verse  30  to  another  hand. 


532  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


but  also  by  the  results  which  we  can  see  did 
actually  accrue  from  them,  they  must  be 
ranked  high  indeed.  He  accomplished  by 
force  of  arms  the  complete  pacification  of  the 
long-troubled  Syrophoenician  states — a  pacifica¬ 
tion  that  long  continued  even  though  his  hand 
was  removed.  He  carried  war  into  the  land 
of  Egypt,  and  that  when  the  land  was  not 
weak,  as  it  once  had  been,  but  immediately 
after  a  great  increase  of  strength.  He  de¬ 
feated  and  drove  back  in  confusion  two  great 
Egyptian  kings,  first  Necho  II  and  then  Hophra. 
He  began  the  work  of  consolidating  a  vast  new 
empire,  and  carried  it  to  brilliant  success  by 
sheer  force  of  despotic  power.  There  were 
no  civil  wars  and  no  further  rebellion,  because 
none  dared  raise  a  head  or  hand  against  a  per¬ 
sonal  power  like  his. 

Yet  great  though  Nebuchadrezzar  was  in 
the  organization  and  the  use  of  an  army,  great 
in  the  choice  of  commanders  and  in  their 
employment,  he  bases  all  his  claim  to  pos¬ 
terity’s  honor  not  upon  war  and  its  glories, 
but  upon  the  quiet  acts  of  peace.  His  long 
and  elaborately  written  inscriptions1  have  only 

1  The  chief  inscriptions  of  Nebuchadrezzar  are  the  following:  (a) 
The  East  India  House  Inscription  I  R.  53-64.  Transliterated  and 
translated  into  German  by  Winckler,  Keilinschriftliche  Bibliothek,  iii, 
part  2,  pp.  10-31;  compare  also  David  McGee,  Beitrdge  zur  Assyriologie, 
iii,  528-534.  Langdon,  Neubabylonische  Konigsinschriften,  No.  15, 
pp.  120-141,  with  which  also  compare  the  analysis  of  contents,  ibid., 
pp.  26-31,  which  is  very  useful  for  historical  purposes.  English  trans¬ 
lation  by  C.  J.  Ball,  Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology, 
x,  pp.  87-129.  (b)  The  Philipps  (or  Grotefend)  Cylinder,  I  R,  65, 


THE  REIGN  OF  NEBUCHADREZZAR 


533 


a  boastful  line  or  two  of  conquest,  while  their 
long  periods  are  heavy  with  the  descriptions 
of  extraordinary  building  operations.  From 
his  father  he  may  have  inherited  this  inclina¬ 
tion,  if  not  skill  in  its  accomplishment.  When 
he  ascended  the  throne  Babylon  was  already 
showing  the  result  of  Nabopolassar ’s  building, 
but  it  must  have  looked  almost  a  ruin  in  its 
very  incompleteness.  The  great  works  which 
Nabopolassar  had  undertaken  were  in  con¬ 
siderable  part  left  unfinished.  To  these  Neb¬ 
uchadrezzar  first  addressed  his  labors.  The 
chief  of  them  all  were  the  walls  of  Babvlon. 
which  Nabopolassar  had  intended  to  rebuild, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  enlarge.  He  had 
perhaps  accomplished  about  two  thirds  of  his 
plans  when  the  work  was  left  to  his  greater 
son.  The  inner  wall  of  Babylon,  the  Imgur- 


66.  Winekler,  Keilinschriftliche  Bibliothek ,  iii,  part  2,  pp.  32-39.  Ball, 
P  S  B  A,  x,  pp.  215-230.  Langdon,  op.  cit.,  pp.  88-95.  (c)  The  build¬ 

ing  of  E-kharsag-ella  in  Babylon,  V  It.  34  (numbered  68,  7-9,  1). 
David  McGee,  Beitrage  zur  Assyriologie,  iii,  542-544.  Winekler,  Zeit- 
schrift  fur  Assyriologie,  ii,  142-144.  Ibid.,  Keilinschriftliche  Bibliothek, 
iii,  part  2,  pp.  38-45.  Langdon,  op.  cit.,  pp.  70-78.  Ball,  P  S  B  A,  x,  359- 
368,  and  xi,  21 1-214.  (d)  Restoration  of  E-ur-imin-an-ki  zikkurat  in 

Borsippa,  I  It.  51,  No.  1.  Winekler,  K  B.  iii,  2,  pp.  52-55.  C.  J. 
Ball,  P  S  B  A,  xi,  116,  IT.  Langdon,  op.  cit.,  pp.  98-101.  (e)  Wall 
Inscription  ((from  the  Euphrates  to  the  Ishtar  gate),  I  R.  52,  No.  3. 
Ball,  P  S  B  A,  x,  292-296.  Winekler,  K  B.  iii,  part  2,  54-59.  Langdon, 
op.  cit.,  No.  7,  pp.  86-89.  (f)  The  Larsa  Inscription,  I  R.  51,  No.  2. 
Winekler,  K  B.  iii,  part  2,  58-61.  Langdon,  op.  cit.,  No.  10,  pp.  96,  97. 
(g)  The  Canal  Inscription,  I  R.  52,  No.  4,  translated  by  Winekler, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  60,  61.  In  addition  to  these  several  minor  inscriptions 
are  enumerated  in  Bezold,  Kurzgefasster  Ueberblick,  and  are  also  trans¬ 
lated  by  Winekler,  op.  cit.,  pp.  60-71.  See  further,  David  W.  McGee, 
"Zur  Topographic  Babylons  auf  Grund  der  Urkunden  Nabopolassars 
und  Ncbukadnezars,”  Beitrage  zur  Assyriologie,  iii,  524-560. 


534  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


Bel,  was  completely  finished,  and  the  outer 
wall,  the  Nimitti-Bel,  likewise,  their  thickness 
being  increased  and  the  ditches  which  belonged 
to  them  being  lined  with  brick.  In  connection 
with  this  he  reconstructed  the  great  city  gates, 
which  were  not  of  solid  metal,  but  were  of 
cedar  wood  covered  with  strips  of  decorated 
bronze.  At  the  thresholds  he  set  up  bronze 
colossi,  probably  of  the  usual  half-human,  half- 
animal  form.  For  the  age  in  which  these 
walls  were  built  they  were  probably  almost 
impregnable,  for  they  far  exceeded  the  walls 
of  Jerusalem  and  of  Tyre,  which  had  so  well 
resisted  Nebuchadrezzar’s  own  assaults.  But 
even  with  this  result  Nebuchadrezzar  was  far 
from  satisfied.  He  would  finish  all  that  his 
father  had  planned  and  then  go  far  beyond 
him.  Not  only  should  the  inner  wall  be  im¬ 
pregnable,  the  outer  wall  should  be  so  strong 
that  no  force  should  ever  be  able  to  reach  the 
inner  wall,  and  then  to  cap  the  curious  climax 
he  would  even,  on  some  sides,  make  it  im¬ 
possible  even  to  reach  the  outer  wall.  On 
the  southern  side  the  city  needed  no  further 
defense,  for  upon  it  lay  the  land  of  Chaldea, 
loyal  to  incorruptibility,  and  strong  enough 
to  prevent  any  force  from  passing  through  its 
borders  to  attack  the  capital.  It  remained, 
therefore,  only  to  strengthen  the  walls  upon 
three  sides.  This  was  done  in  the  following 
manner:  Upon  the  east  of  the  city,  at  a  dis- 


THE  REIGN  OF  NEBUCHADREZZAR  535 


tance  of  four  thousand  cubits  from  the  outer 
wall,  he  built  another  massive  wall.  Before 
this  was  a  vast  moat,  basin-shaped,  deep, 
and  walled  round  with  bricks  like  a  quay. 
The  outworks  on  the  west  were  similar,  but 
not  so  strong,  and  this  was  natural,  for  the 
desert  formed  a  natural  barrier.  The  works 
on  the  north  were  entirely  different  in  con¬ 
struction  and  apparently  in  purpose.  Between 
the  two  city  walls,  and  between  the  Euphrates 
and  the  Ishtar  gate,  Nebuchadrezzar  reared  a 
great  artificial  platform  of  brick  laid  in  bitumen. 
Upon  this  elevated  plateau  was  then  erected  a 
citadel,  which  was  connected  with  his  royal 
palace.  While  this  construction  did  not  act 
as  the  former  in  keeping  a  hostile  army  from 
reaching  even  the  outer  wall,  it  did  make  the 
outer  wall  at  that  point  practically  a  solid 
construction  back  to  the  inner  wall,  and  so 
made  it  impossible  that  it  should  be  either 
broken  down  or  even  breached.  At  the  same 
time  the  lofty  citadel  made  a  watchtower 
whence  the  level  country  for  miles  could  be 
commanded,  and  from  which  a  destructive 
shower  of  missiles  could  be  rained  on  the  heads 
of  any  attacking  party. 

With  these  works  Nebuchadrezzar  had  made 
the  taking  of  Babylon,  if  any  defense  were 
made  within,  an  impossibility  in  that  age. 
The  compass  of  the  walls  was  so  vast  that 
no  single  power,  and  perhaps  scarcely  a  com- 


536  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


bination  of  powers,  could  hope  to  accomplish 
an  investment  that  would  reduce  the  city  by 
famine;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  wall  after 
wall  must  be  broken  down,  under  almost 
impossible  conditions,  if  the  city  was  to  be 
taken  from  without  by  assault.  The  enemies 
of  Babylon  must  lay  their  plans  to  gain  the 
city,  in  its  state  of  defense,  only  from  within 
by  treachery.1 

When  the  defenses  were  fully  accomplished 
it  was  natural  that  Nebuchadrezzar  should 
turn  to  the  beautifying  and  increasing  of  the 
city  from  within.  Nabopolassar  had  built  a 
great  street,  Ai-ibur-shabu,  which  Nebuchad¬ 
rezzar  now  increased  in  height,  leveled,  and 
repaved;  to  this  he  joined  a  new  and  handsome 
street  called  Ishtar-sakipat-tebi-sha.  The  repav¬ 
ing  of  these  streets,  at  an  increased  elevation, 
made  necessary  two  other  great  works.  The 
points  at  which  they  passed  through  the  inner 
and  outer  walls  were  marked  by  great  gate¬ 
ways,  which  had  now  become  too  low.  They 
were  therefore  completely  torn  down  to  water 
level  and  rebuilt  in  astonishing  magnificence, 
the  massive  cedar  doors  covered  with  bronze 
plates,  while  before  the  thresholds  were  placed 
great  colossi  of  animals  and  dragons.  Yet 

1  Herodotus  (i,  clxxviii,  clxxix)  has  given  a  most  elaborate  descrip¬ 
tion  of  these  defenses.  As  to  the  value  of  his  testimony  see  above, 
vol.  i,  pp.  393-399.  For  Nebuchadrezzar’s  own  account  see  East 
India  House  Inscriptions,  col.  iv,  66-73;  v,  1-65;  vi,  1-55.  Compare 
Appendix  C. 


Copyright  by  Underwood  &  Underwood,  N.  Y. 


II — 537 


7  ' :  F,  !7"7A  *  \  777  \  ^ 


another  nee<  wm  brought  &i  -  ;t.  ;  \  na>. 
same  ele\arim  -  ie  street  *  surfaces.  The 
doors  of  tim  .  which  Nabopolassar  l,:ui 
rebuilt,  mils',  be  changed,  and  with  this,  fox 
greater  display,  came  the  rebuilding  of  tire 

e* iti re  ;  '  .7,  rhi  w<  j  o  k  )f  colossal 

• 

proportions,  though  ieSvS  than  thar  of  the  work 
upon  the  walls.  Nebuchadrezzar  i  careful 
to  state  that  for  this  reconstruction  he  began 
at  the  earth's  surface,  and  laid  afresh  the 
foundations  in  brick  and  bitumen, 
he  adds  fur-  -  due  stn.  ment  that  br* 

-doof  tfh*H  oitmnT  pcxxo-i  1  >  rufatr  ioFf  1o  iboh  Tlobfl 
J  :  .Rotmffqub  orf  X  fncv/ot  juii 
upon  the  vastness  of  ti  e  undertaking  when 

one  considers  the  Asm  nee  by  land  fro n  the 
Lebanon  to  the  Euphrates  over  which  u  >e 
beams  must  in  some  manner  be  carried,  an  ; 

then  the  long  rafting  down  the  river. 

From  siwb  )  a  ling--  of  war  and  m  arid-  a 

Nebuchadn  turned  to  temples — the  homes 

of  M-  ■  „  •  ■  ■:  i 

haw,  ■  >  i  ea  I  bo  ,  but  be  rr  de 

' 

decorated  with  *  H,  in  the  place  of  its  fori 

decorated,  and  also  with  ‘red 

In  his  own  stoi  ••  -  wo  temple  works  w 


1  Kh  t  India  Huu^e  Ii  rii  j,  col,  ii,  40-f>5;  col  ; 
hr,(i  'hri/t.  liihl.,  i  •  ;  14,  ’6. 


Brick  floor  of  Nebuchadrezzar/  Throne  Hall,  look¬ 
ing  toward  the  Euphrates. 


THE  FEIGN  OF  NEBUCHADREZZAR 


537 


another  necessity  was  brought  about  by  this 
same  elevation  of  the  street  surfaces.  The 
doors  of  the  palace,  which  Nabopolassar  had 
rebuilt,  must  be  changed,  and  with  this,  for 
greater  display,  came  the  rebuilding  of  the 
entire  palace.  This  was  a  work  of  colossal 
proportions,  though  less  than  that  of  the  work 
upon  the  walls.  Nebuchadrezzar  is  careful 
to  state  that  for  this  reconstruction  he  began 
at  the  earth’s  surface,  and  laid  afresh  the 
foundations  in  brick  and  bitumen.  To  this 
he  adds  further  the  statement  that  he  brought 
great  cedar  beams  from  the  Lebanon  for  the 
work.  That  word  alone  suggests  a  comment 
upon  the  vastness  of  the  undertaking,  when 
one  considers  the  distance  by  land  from  the 
Lebanon  to  the  Euphrates  over  which  these 
beams  must  in  some  manner  be  carried,  and 
then  the  long  rafting  down  the  river. 

From  such  buildings  of  war  and  of  residence 
Nebuchadrezzar  turned  to  temples — the  homes 
of  his  gods.  Upon  E-sagila1  he  seems  not  to 
have  expended  any  great  labor,  but  he  made 
its  vast  entrance  doorway  to  shine  as  the  sun. 
But  the  hall  of  the  oracles,  Du-azag,  was 
decorated  with  gold,  in  the  place  of  its  former 
silver,  while  the  great  temple  E-kua  was  re¬ 
decorated,  and  this  also  with  “red  gold.” 
In  his  own  story  these  temple  works  are  passed 

1  East  India  House  Inscription,  col.  ii,  40-65;  col.  iii,  1-10,  Winckler, 
Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  iii,  part  2,  pp.  14,  15. 


538  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


over  in  a  few  lines,  and  here  may  have  only 
a  passing  word,  but  we  must  not  fail  to  make 
due  allowance  for  them  when  imagination  sets 
in  array  before  us  the  works  of  this  one  king. 
To  his  gods  Nebuchadrezzar  paid  a  full  measure 
of  faith,1  as  every  inscription  testifies  in  words. 
To  them  he  was  not  likely  to  give  less  of  works 
when  he  rebuilt  his  imperial  city.  Beneath 
the  few  lines  of  his  hasty  allusion  lies  the 
great  fact  of  immense  and  costly  works  for 
the  praise  of  the  gods  of  Babylon. 

One  more  work  was  done  for  Babylon  itself, 
and  that  a  work  deemed  always  praiseworthy 
in  a  king  of  Babylonia.  Canal  restoration  was 
constantly  necessary,  and  since  the  day  when 
Hammurapi  built  his  first  canal  at  the  very 
founding  of  his  realm,  king  after  king  had 
rebuilt  these  indispensable  public  works.  The 
eastern  canal  of  Babylon,  by  name  Libil- 
Khegalla,  had  fallen  into  a  state  of  ruin.  The 
clay  from  its  banks  had  slipped  down  into  its 
channel  until,  in  places  at  least,  its  very  course 
could  not  be  traced.  Nebuchadrezzar  had  it 
redug,  and  then  walled  up  from  the  bottom. 
This  canal,  in  its  rebuilding,  was  carried  be¬ 
neath  the  great  street  of  Ai-ibur-shabu,  and 
that  made  necessary  a  bridge  to  carry  the 
street  over  the  sluggish  waters.  It  would  be 
interesting  to  know  the  construction  and  the 


\ 


1  See  Rogers,  “The  Words  of  Nebuchadnezzar  Concerning  Himself,” 
Sunday  School  Times,  Dec.  3,  189S,  pp.  802,  803. 


THE  REIGN  OE  NEBUCHADREZZAR  539 


material  of  the  bridge,  but  the  record  is  silent 
thereon.  Nebuchadrezzar  himself  plainly  con¬ 
sidered  this  canal  work  as  worthy  of  especial 
note;  to  it  he  gave  an  entire  inscription,1*  as 
he  did  not  even  to  his  great  wall,  temple,  and 
palace  erections  and  adornments.  Babylonia 
was  still  a  rainless  land,  for  during  a  large 
part  of  the  growing  portion  of  the  year  no 
rain  fell,  and  the  wet  season  could  not  provide 
out  of  its  abundance  against  these  summer 
droughts  save  by  canals  dug  by  man.  The 
builders  of  canals  were  therefore  its  chief 
benefactors.  The  canals  also  served  another 
very  important  purpose,  for  by  them  was  the 
major  part  of  the  traffic  of  the  country  carried 
on.  It  was  not  by  roads,  so  much  as  by  canals, 
that  the  commerce  of  Babylon  moved  back 
and  forth. 

The  construction  of  temple,  palace,  canal, 
and  defenses  of  Babylon,  must  have  been 
spread  over  a  long  series  of  years,  though 
perhaps  little  was  done  in  regard  to  them 
until  the  chief  of  his  wars  were  over.  Had 
Nebuchadrezzar  done  nothing  more  for  his 
kingdom  than  thus  to  make  his  capital  great, 
powerful,  and  beautiful,  his  claim  to  fame  in 
Babylonia  would,  from  all  Oriental  standards, 
have  been  good.  It  was  of  the  very  nature 
of  Oriental  monarchs  in  the  ancient  world  to 

1  This  inscription  is  published  I  R.  52,  No.  4,  and  translated  by  Winck- 
ler,  op.  cit.,  pp.  60,  61.  Langdon,  N  eubabylonische  Konigsinschriften , 
No.  8,  pp.  88,  89. 


540  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


plunder  the  whole  kingdom  that  the  capital 
might  be  rich  and  worthy.  This  Nebuchad¬ 
rezzar  had  done,  but  he  had  not  left  undone 
great  works  for  the  other  chief  cities  of  his 
empire.  Over  Babylon  he  had  watched  with 
especial  pride.  He  may  well  have  felt  and 
spoken  as  the  Hebrew  sacred  book  represents: 
“Is  not  this  great  Babylon,  that  I  have  built 
for  the  house  of  the  kingdom,  by  the  might 
of  my  power,  and  for  the  honor  of  my  majesty?’ n 

Over  Borsippa,  also,  did  he  turn  his  gaze 
and  make  his  boast,  and  to  it  he  also  gave 
works  of  reconstruction.  In  Borsippa  the 
pyramidal  temple  of  E-ur-imin-an-ki,  “the  house 
of  the  seven  quarters  of  the  Heavens  and  the 
Earth,”  had  fallen  into  partial  ruin.  It  had 
been  originally  intended  when  it  was  built 
to  make  it  consist  of  seven  stages  from  earth 
to  its  topmost  pinnacle.  The  final  stage  had, 
however,  not  been  added  at  all,  according  to 
Nebuchadrezzar’s  statement  on  the  subject. 
That  alone  would  have  tempted  the  building 
king  to  a  work  of  completion.  But  besides 
this  the  building  was  now  in  bad  repair.  The 
account  of  it  which  Nebuchadrezzar  gives  is 
very  instructive  as  showing  the  process  and 
the  cause  of  decay  in  Babylonian  constructions.1 2 
He  says  that  the  water  drains  were  out  of 
order,  and  that  therefore  the  rains  had  broken 

1  Dan.  iv,  30. 

2  The  Borsippa  Inscription,  I  R.  51,  No.  1,  Winckler,  op.  cit.,  pp. 
52-55.  Langdon,  N eubahylonische  Konigsinschriften,  No.  11,  pp.  98,  fh 


THE  HEIGH  OF  NEBUCHADREZZAR  541 

down  its  walls,  and  the  outer  covering  of  burnt 
bricks  had  burst  open.  Though  Babylonia 
was  a  rainless  land  in  the  sense  that  it  had 
no  regular  rains  of  value  to  the  husbandman, 
it  was  subject  to  torrential  downpours  of  water. 
If  this  was  not  rapidly  and  completely  carried 
off,  it  soaked  in  between  the  burnt  facing  and 
the  unburnt  filling  of  the  walls  and  caused  a 
bulging,  which  was  liable  to  end  in  a  downfall 
of  the  wall.  To  such  pass  had  this  building 
come.  Nebuchadrezzar  now  rebuilt  the  struc¬ 
ture,  supplying  new  strength  to  it  without 
taking  it  down  to  its  foundations,  as  he  had 
done  repeatedly  in  other  cases.  When  thus 
restored  he  capped  it  with  the  new  story  to 
bring  it  to  the  required  symmetrical  height. 
In  like  manner  he  rebuilt  or  restored  the  re¬ 
maining  temples  of  the  city.  To  these  works 
of  peace  he  added  a  work  of  preparation  for 
defense  in  war  by  rebuilding  the  walls  of  Bor- 
sippa  on  the  same  general  scale  and  plan  as 
those  of  Babylon. 

In  the  reconstruction  and  adornment  of  the 
temples  of  E-sagila  at  Babylon  and  of  E-zida 
at  Borsippa  Nebuchadrezzar  had  honored  the 
most  ancient  and  most  venerated  of  all  the 
shrines  of  the  Babylonian  people.  Other  tem¬ 
ples  might  and  did  possess  great  renown  in 
this  or  that  city;  these  were  honored  wherever 
the  name  of  Babylonia  went,  and  wherever 
its  people  had  joys  or  sorrows.  In  these  temples 


542  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

the  king  worshiped.  He  had  now  made  them 
worthy  of  the  gods  who  had  made  him  great. 
But  he  likewise  owed  debts  to  other  gods  and 
to  the  citizens  of  other  cities.  He  therefore 
carried  on  restorations  of  temples  in  other 
cities,  among  which  he  especially  enumerates 
Sippar,  Larsa,  Ur,  Dilb  at,  Baz,  and  Uruk.1 
On  the  bricks  which  he  laid  in  every  temple 
he  stamped  his  name  and  royal  titles,  and 
from  every  ruin  in  Babylonia  which  these 
later  days  have  opened  and  explored,  however 
lightly,  bricks  have  come  bearing  the  stamp 
of  this  king.  It  would  appear  that  not  only 
in  the  city  in  which  he  dwelt,  and  in  the  few 
which  he  especially  enumerates,  but  in  every 
other  city,  small  or  great,  in  his  own  land,  he 
had  either  built  or  restored.  Like  unto  him 
in  this  particular  no  king  his  equal  had  ever 
reigned  in  Babylonia. 

In  the  year  562  Nebuchadrezzar  died.  Of 
his  last  years  we  know  nothing  but  continued 
building,  and  of  his  last  days  and  the  final 
cause  of  his  death  we  have  no  Babylonian 
record.  The  story  of  the  book  of  Daniel2 
that  his  great  pride  had  a  deep  fall,  and  that 
his  reason  was  lost,  and  that  he  was  left  to 
suffer  of  a  madness  which  made  him  conceive 
himself  a  beast  of  the  field,  finds  no  mention 
in  any  record  of  his  own  race.3  It  might  well 


1  See  the  texts  enumerated  above. 

2  Dan.  iv,  31,  ff. 

3  Josephus  has  reported  a  similar  tradition  in  these  words:  “Nebu- 


THE  REIGN  OF  NEBUCHADREZZAR  543 


be  a  day  of  mourning  in  all  Babylon  when  the 
great  king  died.  Unto  the  very  ends  of  the 
earth  he  had  made  the  name  of  Babylon  great. 

Enough  has  already  been  said  concerning 
his  merits  and  success  as  a  man  of  war.  In 
taking  a  view  of  his  whole  personality  there 
are  to  be  added  to  this  several  other  points 
of  weight.  His  building  operations  were  so 
extensive  that  in  this  particular  he  outranks 
all  who  preceded  him,  whether  in  Assyria  or 
in  Babylonia.  For  the  most  part  these  works 
were  beneficent,  though  the  execution  of  them 
must  have  cost  much  human  life  and  terrible 
suffering  of  fatigue  and  oppression.  That  he 
added  to  this  love  for  the  constructively  beau¬ 
tiful  an  interest  in  the  arts  and  the  sciences 
is  clear  enough  from  the  books  which  have 
come  down  to  us  out  of  the  great  collections 
in  his  own  and  other  cities.  These  are  evidences 
also  enough  that  he  was  a  patron  of  letters 
and  science,  worthy  to  be  compared  with  that 
great  Assyrian  founder  of  libraries,  Ashur- 
banipal.  A  man  of  blood  and  iron  it  has  been 
already  sufficiently  shown  that  he  was.  His 
punishment  of  Zedekiah  is  to  be  placed  with 

chadrezzar  falling  into  a  state  of  weakness,  altered  his  (manner  of) 
life  when  he  had  reigned  forty-three  years;  whereupon  his  son,  Evil- 
merodach,  obtained  the  kingdom”  ( Apion ,  i,  20).  Eusebius  also  has 
a  curious  story  of  Nebuchadrezzar’s  end:  ‘‘On  a  certain  occasion  the 
king  went  up  to  the  roof  of  his  palace,  and,  after  prophesying  of  the 
coming  of  the  Persian  Cyrus  and  his  conquest  of  Babylon,  suddenly 
disappeared”  ( Proep .,  ix,  41,  Chron.,  i,  59).  See  Schrader,  ‘‘Die  Sage 
vom  Wahnsinn  Nebukadnezars,”  Jahrb.  fur  Prot.  Theologie,  vii,  pp. 
629,  If.,  and  compare  Prince,  Commentary  on  the  Book  of  Daniel,  pp.  32-35. 


544  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


the  very  worst  instances  of  savagery  in  ail 
that  history.  'But  it  is  just  to  remember  that 
Zedekiah  had  broken  an  oath,  and  so  may  be 
considered  as  having  offended  against  the  great 
god  Marduk,  and  that  in  a  most  vital  point. 
Further  than  this  there  is  no  other  instance 
of  great  cruelty  known  to  us;  and  it  is  especially 
worthy  of  notice  that  we  find  no  case  of  cruelty 
practiced  solely  from  bloodthirstiness,  and  in 
repulsive  fashions,  as  was  so  often  the  case 
in  the  reigns  of  certain  Assyrian  kings  like 
Ashurnazirpal. 

To  all  his  virtues  and  all  his  faults  Nebuchad¬ 
rezzar  added  deep  piety.  He  was  a  polytheist, 
worshiping  especially  Marduk,  god  of  the 
mighty  temple  of  E-sagila  in  Babylon,  and 
Nabu,  god  of  the  great  temple  E-zida  in  Bor- 
sippa.  He  was,  however,  careful  to  pay  due 
homage  to  gods  many  and  lords  many  in  dif¬ 
ferent  cities  of  his  empire,  and  to  these,  as 
we  have  seen,  he  likewise  dedicated  temples. 

When  he  died  there  died  also  the  real  power 
to  live  and  grow  in  his  empire.  He  left  no 
son  like  himself,  and  the  Chaldean  people 
were  unable  to  produce  another  man  worthy 
to  sit  upon  his  throne  and  sway  his  scepter. 


CHAPTER  III 


THE  LAST  YEARS  OF  THE  CHALDEAN  EMPIRE 

The  throne  of  Babylon,  which  Nebuchad¬ 
rezzar  had  made  so  potent  a  force  in  the  world, 
was  occupied  at  once  upon  his  death  by  Amil- 
Marduk,  the  biblical  Evil-merodach1  (man  or 
servant  of  Marduk),  the  son  of  Nebuchad¬ 
rezzar  (561-560  B.  C.).  So  strong  had  been 
Nebuchadrezzar’s  hold  upon  the  people  that 
there  was  no  attempt  at  disturbances  in  the 
transfer  of  power  to  his  son. 

Of  his  reign  we  know  almost  nothing,  for 
no  inscriptions  of  his  own  have  been  found. 
Two  allusions  from  the  outside  give  our  only 
possible  view  of  his  brief  reign.  The  first  of 
these  comes,  as  so  much  of  our  information 
of  his  father’s  reign,  from  the  Hebrews.  The 
writer  of  the  Second  Book  of  Kings2  states 
that  in  the  first  year  of  his  reign,  and  thirty- 
seven  years  after  the  captivity  of  Jehoiachin, 
he  took  the  Hebrew  exile  out  of  prison.  From 
that  time  Jehoiachin  enjoyed  the  fare  of  a 

1  2  Kings  xxv,  27;  Jer.  lii,  31;  LXX  reads  Evta’XpapufieK,  and  Berossos 
has  the  form  '  ApiXpapovfionor.  See  Haupt,  “Uebcr  den  Halbvocal  u 
im  Assyrischen,”  Zeitschrift  fur  Assyriologic,  ii,  pp.  266,  284,  ff. 

2  2  Kings  xxv,  27-30;  compare  Jer.  lii,  31-34. 

545 


546  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


king  and  wore  the  garments  of  royalty  in 
exchange  for  the  prison  garb  which  he  had 
worn  so  long.  Of  this  act  of  mercy,  which  is, 
however,  not  inconsistent  with  the  remaining 
facts  concerning  this  king,  there  is  no  other 
record.  To  Berossos1  we  owe  the  remaining 
reference  to  this  reign.  He  says  that  Evil- 
merodach  ruled  unlawfully  and  tyrannically. 
It  may  be  that  the  release  of  Jehoiachin  was 
one  expression  of  unlawful  rule,  and  that  it 
was  the  priestly  or  the  national  party  whose 
feeling  toward  the  king  Berossos  expresses.2 
Such  men  would  naturally  hate  a  king  who 
showed  any  feeling  of  sympathy  or  help  for 
the  accursed  people  who  had  cost  Babylon  so 
dear  in  lives  and  treasure  for  their  subduing. 
For  this  or  some  other  cause  Evil-merodach 
lost  the  loyalty  of  enough  of  his  subjects  to 
make  successful  a  plot  against  his  life.  In 
the  second  full  year  of  his  reign  he  was  assas¬ 
sinated.  His  reign  left  no  mark  upon  his 
country’s  history,  but  the  violent  end  of  his 
life  was  an  ominous  portent  of  the  desperate 
days  that  were  in  the  future.  The  assassina- 

1  Berossos,  Frag.  14,  in  Miiller-Didot,  Frag.  Hist.  Grcec.,  ii,  p.  507 
(compare  Eusebius,  Chron.,  49,  22,  ff.),  says  of  Evil-merodach,  TcpoaraQ 
ribv  npayparuv  avoput;  nal  aoeXyu^.  This  avdpug  is  supported  by  the  Stele 
of  Nabonidus  (see  Die  Inschrift  der  Stele  Nabuna’id’s,  von  L.  Messer- 
schmidt,  pp.  18,  30),  which  represents  this  king  and  Labashi-Marduk 
as  lawbreakers  (see  col.  v,  lines  33,  34). 

2  Tiele  ( Geschichte ,  ii,  pp.  457,  464)  argues  that  the  restoration  of  Jehoi¬ 
achin  does  not  fit  the  character  of  Evil-merodach  nor  the  other  chron¬ 
ological  indications,  and  therefore  proposes  to  ascribe  it  to  Neriglissor. 
The  point  is,  however,  not  well  taken. 


LAST  YEARS  OF  CHALDEAN  EMPIRE  517 


tion  of  a  king  makes  the  dark  periods  of  Assyrian 
history  cry  out  a  warning  to  the  Chaldeans. 

The  plan  for  the  slaying  of  Amil-Marduk 
had  been  devised  by  Nergal-shar-usur  (Nerig- 
lissor — that  is,  “Nergal,  protect  the  king”), 
and  had  probably  been  executed  by  him  or 
upon  his  order.  He  now  became  king  of  Baby¬ 
lon,  and  had  likewise  a  brief  reign  (559-555 
B.  C.).  He  was  an  influential  man  long  before 
the  death  of  Nebuchadrezzar.  He  it  was, 
probably,  who  appeared  at  Jerusalem  during 
the  war  of  Nebuchadrezzar,1  holding  the  office 
of  rab-mag ,  and  engaging  in  important  dip¬ 
lomatic  duties.  His  family  was  influential 
in  business  affairs,  as  the  numerous  contract 
tablets2  from  that  period  abundantly  testify. 
Whatever  his  origin  may  have  been,  he  had 
at  least  the  station,  or  the  power,  to  gain 
the  hand  of  Nebuchadrezzar’s  daughter  in 
marriage.  In  his  most  important  inscription3 
he  calls  his  father  Bel-shum-ishkun,  of  whom 
nothing  is  known.  So  far  as  his  ability  would 
permit  he  followed  in  all  things  the  example 
of  the  great  king  who  had  made  the  empire; 
his  inscriptions  even  being  in  a  similar  style. 

1  Jer.  xxxix,  3. 

2  See,  for  example,  Strassmaier,  Inschriften  von  Nabuchodonosor, 
Konig  von  Babylon,  No.  83,  p.  53  (translated  by  Peiser,  Keilinschrift. 
Bibl.,  iv,  p.  187,  No.  x) ;  No.  266,  pp.  159,  160  (translated  by  Peiser, 
op.  cit.,  p.  195,  No.  xxiv). 

3  The  Ripley  Cylinder,  published  by  Budge,  Proceedings  of  the  Society 
of  Biblical  Archceology,  x,  part  3  (translated  by  Bezold,  Keilinschrift. 
Bibl.,  ii,  part  2,  77,  ff.).  Langdon,  N eubabylonische  Kdnigsinschrift.cn, 
Neriglissar,  No.  2,  pp.  214-219. 


548  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

His  pride,  likewise,  was  in  the  adornment 
and  the  increase  of  Babylon,  and  his  first  con¬ 
cern  was  to  beautify  the  temple  E-sagila. 
Before  its  doors  had  stood  great  bronze  dragons, 
to  warn  away  the  evil;  these  he  covered  with 
silver.  The  temple  E-zida  of  Borsippa  he 
also  decorated  and  beautified.  In  these  works 
he  honored  the  gods  who  had  brought  him 
from  the  world  of  commerce  even  to  the  rule 
of  an  empire,  and  to  them  he  pays  the  tribute 
of  words  of  passionate  devotion,  heaping  word 
upon  word  of  prayer  and  of  praise.  It  remained 
only  now  that  he  should  accomplish  some 
work  for  the  canal  system  of  Babylon.  In 
this  his  first  care  was  to  regulate  the  course 
of  the  canal  upon  which  the  city  was  built, 
this  being  a  channel  of  the  Euphrates  itself, 
which  was  now  changed  so  that,  as  in  former 
times,  it  should  pass  directly  by  the  temple 
of  E-sagila.  The  eastern  arm  of  the  canal  was 
also  walled  up,  that  its  current  might  flow 
with  sweet  water,  unmixed  with  sand. 

The  residence  of  Nergal-shar-usur  was  in 
the  same  palace  as  that  of  Nebuchadrezzar, 
and  in  this  he  carried  on  extensive  alterations 
and  improvements.  The  first  of  them  con¬ 
cerned  its  foundations,  which  the  canal  had 
made  unsafe,  and  the  last  of  them  were  put 
upon  the  lofty  summit  of  the  building.  In 
these  works  the  chief  part  was  played  by  the 
ever-present  brick,  but  mention  is  made  also 


LAST  YEARS  OF  CHALDEAN  EMPIRE  549 


of  the  cedar  beams,  which  came,  as  before, 
from  the  Lebanon. 

There  is  no  mention  in  the  life  of  Nergal- 
shar-usur  of  any  wars  throughout  his  empire. 
It  is,  however,  scarcely  probable  that  he  could 
have  reigned  without  any  disturbances  re¬ 
quiring  for  their  suppression  the  force  of  arms. 
It  was  the  custom  of  the  Babylonian  kings 
to  say  nothing  of  war;  in  this  he  followed  the 
former  usage.  Whether  a  warrior  himself  or 
not,  he  kept  his  empire  intact,  and  the  Chaldean 
power  suffered  no  loss  from  that  which  Nebu¬ 
chadrezzar  had  won.  Better  even  than  was 
to  be  expected  did  the  empire  sustain  itself. 

The  oft-repeated  prayer1  of  Nergal-shar-usur 
for  a  long  reign  was  not  granted.  In  556  his 
life  ended,  and  his  son  succeeded  him.  Labashi- 
Marduk,  whose  name  puzzled  even  Berossos 
and  the  Greeks  in  general,  who  represent  it 
as  Labassarachos,  or  Labarosoarchodos,  was  but 
a  youth2  when  he  became  king.  At  once  he 
became  the  subject  of  a  conspiracy,  directed 
against  him,  says  tradition,  because  he  dis¬ 
played  evil  traits  of  character.  That  this 
reason  was  a  mere  excuse  for  a  deep  plot  of 
the  priesthood  to  wrest  the  throne  from  his 

1  So,  for  example,  “O  Marduk,  great  lord,  glorious  Enlil  of  the  gods, 
light  of  the  gods,  his  fathers;  may  I,  according  to  thy  exalted  unchange¬ 
able  command,  enjoy  the  glory  of  the  house  which  I  have  built,  may 
I  attain  unto  old  age  in  it”  (Cambridge  Cylinder,  col.  ii,  lines  31-34). 

2  Berossos  calls  him  mile;  (Frag.  14,  Miiller-Didot,  op.  cit.,  ii,  p.  507), 
and  this  is  confirmed  by  the  Nabonidus  Stele,  cols,  iv  and  v.  See 
Messerschmidt,  op.  cit.,  p.  18. 


550  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


hands  there  can  be  little  doubt.  Labashi- 
Marduk  reigned  but  nine  months  (556),  and 
was  then  killed.  His  successor  was  not  a 
Chaldean  at  all,  but  a  native  Babylonian  not 
related  to  the  reigning  house,  and  this  in¬ 
creases  the  probability  that  beneath  these 
events  lay  schemes  which  were  slowly  working 
out  toward  ruin.  Plot  and  counterplot  would 
not  add  strength  to  the  empire,  and  assas¬ 
sination  boded  ill  to  a  stable  government. 

As  soon  as  Labashi-Marduk  was  dead  the 
conspirators  chose  as  king  a  man  who  had 
participated  in  the  revolution,  for  such  it 
undoubtedly  was.  The  man  chosen  to  ascend 
the  throne  was  Nabonidus  (Nabu-naidu,  the 
god  uNabu  is  glorious”) ,  a  man  of  distinguished 
position.  His  father  was  Nabu-balatsu-iqbi,1 
to  whom  is  given  the  same  title  as  Nergal- 
shar-usur  had  added  to  his  father’s  name. 
Nabonidus2  was  a  man  of  piety,  beyond  even 

1  Abu  Habba  Cylinder,  col.  i,  line  6,  V  R.  64,  Keilinschrift.  Bibl., 
iii,  part  2,  p.  97.  Langdon,  Neubabylonische  Konigsinschriften,  Na- 
bonid,  No.  1,  pp.  218,  219. 

2  The  direct  sources  for  Nabonidus’s  reign  are  the  following:  (a)  Abu 

Habba  Cylinder,  concerning  the  restorations  in  Harran  and  Sippar. 
A  cylinder  of  three  columns  Avith  169  lines  in  all.  British  Museum  82, 
7-14,  1025,  published  first  V  R.  64.  Transliterated  and  translated  by 
Peiser,  Keilinschriftliche  Bibliothek,  iii,  part  2,  pp.  96-106,  Langdon, 
Neubabylonische  Konigsinschriften,  Nabonid,  No.  1,  pp.  218-229.  (b) 

Restoration  of  the  temple  in  Sippar,  British  Museum  81-7-1,  9.  Pub¬ 
lished  first  by  Bezold,  Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology, 
January,  1889,  plates  I  and  II,  pp.  86,  ff.  Langdon,  op.  cit.,  Nabonid, 
No.  2,  pp.  230-235.  (c)  Re-building  of  the  temple  of  Ebarra  in  Larsa, 

British  Museum,  85-4-30,  2.  Bezold,  op.  cit.,  plates  III-V.  Langdon, 
op.  cit.,  Nabonid,  No.  3,  pp.  234-243.  (d)  Restoration  of  the  temple 

of  Shamash  and  Anunit,  British  Museum,  K.  1688.  Published  I  R. 


* 


. 


- 


t  , ; 


1 1 — 551 


. 


\  i  ■», 


■  •  .  •  •  ■’  !>i  :  .  ■ 

■'  :  ■  '  V  -  - 

wav  than  ( ith  *  : 

.  ■ 

.  0 ‘.3* 88S‘gSc-); ®  Bbtotf oK  1o  ‘ohmlvO  .  t  & 'urd'l 
lo  mqniei  off.)'  ko  Ki-mim  $0  or  imjjol-*iiR*V-to  onO 
.(g^blifeOterlt  to  t  l)-  -lieiiti  jt/i  1  foot  a  ■  ,ij)  o  iH 

yhAe  9fiit-.affoidn9m  rroiiqm&fri  mi T  ,/ «  tus-nv :  b  ikhhfL 
-s&ifcjbri  ot  -Si9bi.jii.js  bills  <rgni  /  •  L  him  ‘ijfqdll-i  I  f>  o; 

stn  .'b^bod  ym  |p  oij.  b  ■  :■] ;  tnqgf  (%j$£  . 

4Gft)  ,11  Tj^aibjMioijdoX  )o.  ;oboii  7  )  X  9’  u^bl 
mp^ICdaitha  9fk  iii  gtyjjp  odl  lo  onQ  .(-0  A  £03 

yaibliud  gaiai^flop 

J  -wiiwISf 

;q  ,bIov-!>'>'  jrlb  rfvvub/l  \/i  ooimjJIi;  sboiobV. 

R‘>  HS  ;  >i!i.’‘  •  on  <1.  :U,  ?  »/  4 

UoaauM  .A  ///  yjI  «dq&Ti$oh>flq-  -moil  ovo’r  .i^obT], 


:  -  at.**):: : 


l.v  IV  tl>.  um 


■ 

<:  mgdon,  0;>.  nf.,  *  ;  '  .\o  r'r,  i»?».  {;; 

.'Vi  •  f*i  ,j*c  r:ti;  !&i.  1  *  .  r  .  . 

■  : 

i  an->c. ■.  ■■  .  .  '  > 

•ionly  -'ailed  N-  !>< 


Figure  1.  Cylinder  of  Nabonidus  (555-538  B.  C.). 
One  of  four  found  in  the  corners  of  the  temple  of 
Sin  (the  moon  god)  at  Mugheir  (Ur  of  the  Chaldees). 
British  Museum.  The  inscription  mentions  the  early 
kings,  Ur-Engur  and  Dungi,  and  alludes  to  Belshaz¬ 
zar,  “the  first-born  son,  the  issue  of  my  body.7’ 

Figure  2.  Cylinder  of  Nebuchadrezzar  II  (604- 
562  B.  C.).  One  of  the  series  in  the  British  Museum 
containing  building  inscriptions  of  the  king.  British 
Museum,  No.  91142. 

Figure  3.  Cylinder  of  Nabonidus,  containing  the 
famous  allusion  to  Naram  Sin,  see  vol.  i,  p.  494. 

[These  three  from  photographs  by  W.  A.  Mansell 
&  Co.,  London.] 


LAST  YEAES  OF  CHALDEAN  EMPIRE  551 


the  example  of  the  Chaldeans  who  had  pre¬ 
ceded  him.  He  was  a  builder  of  temples  and 
a  restorer  of  them,  and  this  appears  to  have 
absorbed  his  chief  energies.  This  work  he 
carried  on  in  a  different  and  in  a  more  thorough 
way  than  either  Nebuchadrezzar  or  Nergal- 
shar-usur.  These  have  been  content  'to  take 
down  a  ruined  temple  to  its  foundations  upon 
the  earth’s  surface,  and  then  to  rebuild  it  of 
a  size  and  a  magnificence  surpassing  that 
which  it  had  been.  Not  so  this  new  servant 
of  the  gods.  He  was  not  content  to  reach  merely 
the  earth’s  surface  as  he  began  the  recon¬ 
struction  of  a  temple.  His  workmen  must 
burrow  in  the  earth  until  the  original  founda¬ 
tion  stones  of  the  temple’s  first  builder  were 
found.  This  was  often  no  easy  task.  As  we 
have  seen  before,  the  temples  of  Babylonia 

69.  Transliterated  and  translated  by  Peiser,  K  B.  iii,  part  2,  pp. 
80-88.  Langdon,  op.  cit.,  Nabonid,  No.  4,  pp.  242-251.  This  text 
contains  important  chronological  notices  of  early  Babylonian  kings, 
see  above,  p.  79.  (e)  Restoration  of  the  Zikkurrat  in  Ur.  British  Mu¬ 

seum,  K.  1689-1692.  Published  I  R.  68,  No.  1.  Transliterated  and 
translated  by  Peiser,  K  B.  iii,  part  2,  pp.  94-97.  Langdon,  op.  cit., 
Nabonid,  No.  5,  pp.  250-253.  (f)  Restoration  of  Ebarra  in  Sippar, 

British  Museum  81-4-28,  No.  3  and  4.  First  published  V  R.  65. 
Transliterated  and  translated  by  Peiser,  K  B.  iii,  part  2,  pp.  108-112. 
Langdon,  op.  cit.,  Nabonid,  No.  6,  pp.  252-261.  (g)  The  preparation 

of  a  tiara  for  Shamash  in  Sippar.  First  published  V  R.  63.  Trans¬ 
literated  and  translated  in  part  by  Peiser,  K  B.  iii,  part  2,  pp.  112-119. 
See  further  Jastrow,  Religion  Babyloniens  und  Assyriens,  ii,  pp  252- 
263.  Langdon,  op.  cit.,  Nabonid,  No.  7,  pp.  262-267.  (h)  The  Stela 

(commonly  called  Nabonidus-Constantinople),  and  of  the  highest 
historical  importance.  Published  by  Scheil,  Recueil  de  Travaux,  xviii, 
and  in  improved  form  by  Messerschmidt,  Mitteilungen  der  V order asiat- 
ischen  Gesellschafl,  1896,  1.  See  also  Jastrow,  Religion,  ii,  pp.  267- 
271.  Langdon,  op.  cit.,  Nabonid,  No.  8,  pp.  270-289. 


552  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


were  constantly  in  decay,  and  this  led  to  re¬ 
peated  restorations.  These  restorations  must 
often  have  left  the  work  of  previous  builders 
covered  with  debris  and  difficult  to  find.  In 
many  rebuildings  the  site  even  of  the  temple 
was  partly  or  wholly  changed.  Amid  all  these 
difficulties  and  discouragements  his  work  went 
on.  In  almost  every  case  the  foundation 
stones  were  found  at  last,  and  the  king’s  name 
who  had  caused  the  first  stone  to  be  laid  was 
then  read,  and  a  careful  record  made  of  the 
fact.  The  finding  of  these  names  of  ancient 
kings  led  to  a  study  of  the  historical  records 
of  the  past,  which  the  royal  libraries  still  pre¬ 
served.  Out  of  the  study  of  these  ancient 
inscriptions  the  historiographers  of  the  court 
of  Nabonidus  gradually  learned  the  dates  of 
past  events  of  importance  and  the  order  of 
the  events  themselves. 

The  next  step  in  this  interesting  develop¬ 
ment  was  to  state,  in  the  inscriptions  of  Nabon¬ 
idus,  that  such  and  such  a  king’s  name  had 
been  found,  and  that  the  king  had  reigned  so 
many  years  before  the  king  who  was  now 
renewing  their  fallen  works.  These  notices  in 
the  inscriptions  of  Nabonidus  make  his  inscrip¬ 
tions  of  surpassing  value  to  the  student  of 
the  past.1  No  longer  are  building  inscriptions 
dreary  wastes  of  boasting  words;  out  of  them 
come  names  buried  otherwise  in  the  mists 


1  See  above,  book  i,  chap,  xiii,  vol.  i,  pp,  492,  ff. 


LAST  YEABS  OE  CHALDEAN  EMPIEE  553 

of  the  past.  These  names  also  have  their 
proper  perspective,  for  the  royal  scribe  has 
written  with  them  the  number  of  years  before 
Nabonidus  they  had  lived.  But  for  these 
notices  many  a  definitely  known  king  whose 
own  inscriptions  have  later  greeted  the  ex- 
plorer’s  spade  could  not  be  assigned  his  proper 
place  in  the  development  of  his  country’s 
political  history.  His  own  texts  bear  no  allu¬ 
sion,  at  times,  to  his  ancestors,  and  no  hint 
as  to  his  chronological  position.  But  the 
scribes  of  Nabonidus  had  lists  of  kings,  now 
lost,  and  were  able  at  once  to  locate  these 
monarchs  in  their  proper  place.  Whether  con¬ 
sciously  or  not,  Nabonidus  thus  became  a 
patron  of  letters  and  history,  and  made  all 
his  race  debtor  to  him  for  his  archaeological 
researches  among  ruined  palaces  and  temples. 
Former  monarchs  who  held  possession  of  Bab}r- 
Ion  had  been  eager  to  have  researches  pursued 
into  the  history  of  the  past,  but  only  that 
their  own  names  might  be  connected  with 
real  or  supposed  ancestors  of  renown.1  To 
this  weakness  there  is  no  analogy  in  Nabonidus. 
His  inscriptions  are  burdened  more  with  the 
names  of  gods  than  of  men,  and  with  no  hero 
of  the  past  does  he  attempt  to  connect  his 
own  lineage. 

These  archaeological  researches  were  interest¬ 
ing  to  Nabonidus  and  the  scholars  of  his  court, 

1  So,  for  example,  Esarhaddon.  See  above,  pp.  141,  142. 


554  HISTORY-  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


but  they  appear  to  have  worked  ill  for  the 
state.  The  king  must  have  given  himself  to 
them  to  the  loss  of  time,  energy,  and  enthusi¬ 
asm  for  the  duties  of  kingcraft,  to  which  he 
appears  to  have  given  little  heed.  He  did  not 
reside  in  Babylon  at  all,  but  at  Tema,1  prob¬ 
ably  an  insignificant  place,  with  no  other 
influence  in  history.  There  he  spent  his  time 
absorbed  in  great  plans  of  building  and  of 
restoration,  enrapt  by  the  work  of  his  scholars, 
who  were  disentangling  the  threads  that  led 
away  into  the  dawn  of  human  history,  and 
devoted  to  prayers  and  good  works  before 
the  gods.  Imagination  conceives  him  not  as 
busied  with  concerns  of  state  in  the  capital 
or  at  the  head  of  an  army  seeking  new  terri¬ 
tory  or  defending  old,  but  rather  as  going 
about  his  lands  watching  the  progress  of  work 
upon  a  temple,  or  stepping  down  into  excava¬ 
tions  to  look  upon  the  inscribed  name  of  some 
old  king  which  no  eye  had  seen  for  thousands 
of  years.  Though  there  is  no  clear  statement 
in  his  records  to  this  effect,  it  seems  almost 
certain  that  the  great  concerns  of  state  were 
left  to  his  son,  Bel-shar-usur  (“Bel  protect 
the  king,”  the  biblical  Belshazzar),  who  was 
a  sort  of  regent  during  probably  a  large  part 
of  the  reign.  That  the  position  of  Bel-shar- 
usur  was  unusual  appears  quite  clearly  from 

1  Pinches  ( Transactions  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology,  vii,  171) 
has  most  improbably  sought  to  connect  the  place  with  a  certain  Tu-ma. 
See  further  Hagen,  Beitrdge  zur  Assyriologie,  ii,  p.  236,  footnote. 


LAST  YEARS  OF  CHALDEAN  EMPIRE  555 

the  manner  of  the  allusions  to  him  in  Na- 
bonidus’s  inscriptions.  At  the  end  of  some  of 
them  his  name  is  coupled  in  the  prayers  with 
that  of  Nabonidus,  and  blessings  are  espe¬ 
cially  invoked  upon  him.1  No  such  usage  as 
this  appears  in  any  other  text,  and  there  must 
be  a  specific  reason  for  it,  which  it  is  simplest 
to  find  in  his  regency.  This  is  supported, 
likewise,  by  the  otherwise  inexplicable  con¬ 
duct  of  Nabonidus  during  the  most  threatening 
situation  in  all  the  history  of  Babylon.  When 
the  army  of  Cyrus,  as  will  be  shown  later,  was 
approaching  the  city  he  remained  in  retirement 
at  Tema,  and  gave  over  the  control  and  leader¬ 
ship  completely  to  Bel-shar-usur.  By  this 
regency  of  Belshazzar  is  also  explained  the 
origin  of  the  Jewish  tradition  preserved  in 
the  book  of  Daniel,  which  makes  Belshazzar,2 
and  not  Nabonidus,  the  last  king  of  Babylon. 
That  it  had  a  historic  basis  there  is  at  least 
this  reason  to  believe. 

As  we  have  no  historic  accounts  of  events  in 
the  earlier  part  of  the  reign  of  Nabonidus,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  reconstruct  those  years 
from  the  slight  notices  which  are  given  them 
-  in  his  own  inscriptions — and  these  notices  are 

1  So,  for  example:  “From  sin  against  thy  great  godhead  guard  me, 
and  grant  me,  as  a  gift,  life  for  many  days,  and  in  the  heart  of  Bel¬ 
shazzar,  my  firstborn  son,  the  offspring  of  my  heart,  establish  rever¬ 
ence  for  thy  great  godhead.  May  he  not  incline  to  sin,  but  enjoy  the 
fullness  of  life”  (small  inscription  of  Ur,  col.  ii,  lines  20-31.  Langdon, 
Neubabylonische  Kdnigsinschviften, y N abonid,  No.  5,  pp.  252,  253). 

2  Dan.  v,  1,  30,  31. 


556  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


naturally  concerned  primarily  with  building. 
At  the  beginning  of  every  inscription  after 
his  title  of  king  of  Babylon  Nabonidus  is  care¬ 
ful  always  to  add  the  words,  “Preserver  of 
E-sagila  and  E-zida,”  thus  connecting  his  name 
continually  with  the  greatest  shrines  of  his 
race.  It  was  not,  however,  in  these  two  temples 
that  his  chief est.  interest  centered.  It  was 
perhaps  useful  for  reasons  of  state  that  he 
should  thus  appear  as  their  patron,  but  lie 
did  not  show  to  either  a  reverence  more  real 
than  words.  He  did  not  even  pay  to  E-sagila 
the  annual  New  Year’s  visit,  which  was  an  act 
sacredly  followed  by  the  kings  who  had  ruled 
before  him.  His  devotion  was  paid  the  more 
to  other  shrines,  in  other  cities.  For  this 
there  was  some  justification  to  be  found  in 
their  almost  complete  neglect  by  recent  gen¬ 
erations.  None  the  less  is  this  custom  of  Na¬ 
bonidus  surprising  in  a  Babylonian  king. 

Perhaps  the  chief  work  of  Nabonidus  was 
the  restoration,  the  rebuilding,  indeed,  of  the 
temple  of  the  sun,  E-babbara,  in  the  ancient 
city  of  Sippar.  Forty-five  years  before,  Neb¬ 
uchadrezzar  had  restored  this  temple,  probably 
to  honor  the  people  of  Sippar  and  attach  them 
loyally  to  his  person.  Its  walls  were  now 
fallen,  and  in  this  we  see  a  curious  comment 
either  upon  the  carelessness  of  Nebuchad¬ 
rezzar’s  workmen  or  the  partial  character  of 
his  restoration.  No  such  work  as  that  would 


LAST  YEARS  OF  CHALDEAN  EMPIRE  557 

satisfy  the  careful  Nabonidus.  The  sun  god 
Shamash  was  first  supplied  with  temporary 
quarters  for  his  occupancy.  Then  the  temple 
was  razed  to  the  ground,  and  the  foundations 
examined  for  the  name  of  the  first  builder. 
Nebuchadrezzar  had  not  found  it  when  his 
restorations  were  made,  and  it  was  not  found 
now  until  the  excavations  had  been  carried 
far  beneath  the  surface.  It  was  sought  with 
passionate  zeal,  the  king  summoning  in  council 
the  elders,  the  mathematicians,  the  wise  men, 
the  indwellers  in  the  Temple  academy,  and 
the  augurs  of  the  great  gods,  while  prayers 
rose  within  and  tears  flowed  without.  Then, 
at  last,  appeared  the  old  corner  stone,  and 
upon  it  the  name  of  Naram-Sin  who  had  caused 
it  to  be  laid  three  thousand  two  hundred 
years  before,  as  the  king’s  savants  declared.1 
“Then,”  says  the  king,  “my  heart  rejoiced, 
my  face  shone.”  In  such  words  would  an 
Assyrian  king  have  celebrated  a  bloody  vie- 
tory  over  men  who  died  to  save  their  own 
firesides!  Then  exactly  upon  that  same  site, 
moving  an  inch  neither  this  way  nor  that, 
the  stone  was  laid  again,  with  all  splendor 
of  ceremony  and  of  honor.  Above  it  rose  the 
new  temple  more  splendid  than  the  old.  For 
its  roof  no  less  than  five  thousand  cedar  beams 
were  required,  while  still  more  of  the  precious 
wood  had  to  be  used  for  its  great  doors.  So 


1  See  above,  vol.  i,  p.  494. 


558  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


the  new  temple  was  finished,  and  into  it  was 
the  god  Shamash  led  by  the  hand  of  Nabon- 
idus,  with  rejoicing,  with  display  of  all  devo¬ 
tion,  and  with  prayers  to  Shamash  that  his 
care  might  be  about  the  king  who  had  thus 
honored  him. 

At  about  the  same  time,  and  perhaps  immedi¬ 
ately  afterward,  Nabonidus  began  the  restora¬ 
tion  of  the  temple  E-ulmash,  the  shrine  of  the 
goddess  Anunit,  in  the  city  of  Sippar-Anunit. 
In  the  same  manner  as  before  he  sought  the 
foundation  stone,  but  this  time  without  such 
intense  earnestness,  and  also  without  success. 
Fie  was  satisfied  with  the  discovery  of  the 
foundation  stone  of  Shagarakti-Shuriash,1  upon 
which  he  laid  anew  the  foundations,  and  then 
reerected  the  temple.  To  this  new  home  the 
goddess  was  introduced  with  gifts  and  with 
prayers.  Not  for  himself  only  were  these  prayers 
offered,  but  also  for  the  future.  It  was  the 
desire  of  Nabonidus  that  in  the  days  to  come 
other  kings  might  be  raised  up  to  rebuild 
the  temple  when  his  work  should  have  out¬ 
lived  its  days  and  the  temple  again  be  in  decay. 

But  there  were  other  great  works  yet  to 
be  done,  and  the  plans  of  the  king  for  build¬ 
ing  not  empires,  but  temples,  had  full  sway 
in  his  active  mind.  His  thoughts  were  con¬ 
tinually  turning  far  away  from  Babylon  and 
its  neighboring  cities  to  a  great  city  in  the 


1  See  above,  vol.  i,  p.  493. 


LAST  YEARS  OF  CHALDEAN  EMPIRE  559 


far  north.  Harran,  a  name  once  great  in 
the  history  of  the  peoples  of  the  Euphrates 
and  the  Tigris,  had  for  centuries  been  of  little 
moment.  The  Median  hordes  had  ruined  its 
streets  and  buildings,  and  destroyed  its  com¬ 
mercial  importance.  The  great  temple  of  Sin, 
the  holiest  shrine  in  all  the  north  country,  a 
temple  bound  by  ancient  ties  to  the  great 
temple  of  Sin  in  Ur  of  the  south  land,  was 
in  ruins.  The  Medes  had  passed  by,  and  as 
in  their  hearts  there  was  no  reverence  for 
Sin,  his  temple  fell  before  their  destructive 
wave,  and  lay  a  ghastly  heap  of  ruins,  its 
bricks  melting  away  into  mud.  To  the  eye 
of  reason  it  might  seem  as  though  the  power 
of  Sin  were  small  that  he  could  not  even  defend 
his  own  house  from  such  despoilers.  But  not 
so  to  the  faith  of  Nabonidus,  for  to  his  thought 
Sin  had  been  angry  and  had  suffered  the  Medes 
(nay,  had  caused  them)  to  break  down  his  house. 
How  better  could  he  punish  his  worshipers,  if 
that  were  his  will,  than  to  take  away  from  their 
hearts  the  solace  of  worship  in  his  temple? 

At  the  very  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Na¬ 
bonidus  he  dreamed  a  dream.  Before  him, 
as  in  a  vision,  stood  the  great  gods  Marduk 
and  Sin.  Then  spoke  Marduk  and  said,  “Na¬ 
bonidus,  king  of  Babylon,  with  thy  horses 
and  thy  wagons,  bring  bricks,  build  E-Khulk- 
hul,  and  let  Sin,  the  great  lord,  have  his  dwell¬ 
ing  therein.”  In  fear  answered  Nabonidus, 


560  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

“The  temple,  which  thou  hast  commanded 
me  to  build,  the  Median  hordes  surround  it, 
and  strong  are  his  forces.”  But  answered 
Marduk,  “The  Median  hordes,  of  whom  thou 
speakest,  they,  their  country,  and  the  kings 
their  allies  are  no  more.”1  Before  the  great 
god  had  commanded  the  rebuilding  of  this 
temple  he  had  arranged  to  remove  the  obstacle 
of  a  warlike  force.  It  was  well  that  he  had. 
An  Assyrian  king  would  have  attacked  any 
force  about  an  honored  god’s  temple,  driven 
it  away,  and  then  rebuilt;  so  would  the  old 
Babylonians,  but  this  new  apostle  of  building 
would  have  none  of  war.  Even  upon  the  god’s 
assurance  that  the  Medes  were  no  more  about 
Harran,  Nabonidus  shrank  in  fear  from  the 
task.  At  last  duty  drove  him  on,  and  he 
essayed  the  great  work.  Upon  all  his  vast 
empire  he  laid  a  levy  for  men  for  the  work. 
From  Gaza,  on  the  borders  of  Egypt,  from  far 
beyond  the  Euphrates,  from  the  eastern  limits 
of  his  empire  they  came — governors,  princes, 
kings — to  help  with  the  work.  It  was  not 
long  since  the  temple  had  last  been  rebuilt, 
for  Ashurbanipal  (668-625  B.  C.)  had  rebuilt 
it  upon  the  foundations  which  Shalmaneser  III 
(858-823  B.  C.)  had  laid.  Stronger  than  be¬ 
fore  arose  the  great  new  walls.  Upon  them, 
for  the  roof,  were  placed  great  cedar  beams 

1 V  R.  64,  col.  i,  lines  8,  ff.  Compare  Langdon,  N eubabylonische 
Kdnigsinschriften,  Nabonid,  No.  1,  pp.  220,  221. 


LAST  YEARS  OF  CHALDEAN  EMPIRE  561 


from  the  Amanus,  while  doors  of  sweet-smelling 
cedar  swung  to  and  fro  upon  their  fastenings. 
So  great  was  the  glory  of  the  new  temple 
that  the  whole  city  of  Harran  shone  “like  the 
new  moon/’1  In  this  new  home,  with  prayer 
and  joyful  ceremony,  was  Sin,  with  his  com¬ 
panions,  brought,  and  another  work  of  duty 
and  honor  had  been  added  to  the  glories  of 
the  reign  of  Nabonidus.  But  in  all  this  there 
is  no  word  of  the  affairs  of  state.  The  gods 
were  honored,  but  what  of  men?  The  day  of 
judgment  was  slowly  moving  on.  While  Na¬ 
bonidus  built  temples,  remained  away  from 
Babylon,  and  looked  not  upon  his  army,  an¬ 
other  people  of  a  fresh  and  almost  untried  race 
were  husbanding  old  and  seeking  new  strength 
for  the  undoing  of  all  this  splendor.  The 
hour  of  their  triumph  had  almost  come. 

The  beginnings  of  new  powers  in  the  world’s 
history  are  usually  obscure,  and  for  later  ages 
difficult  to  trace  out.  So  is  it  with  the  begin¬ 
nings  of  that  power  which  had  slowly  been 
preparing  to  engulf  Babylonia.  Some  steps  in 
its  progress  may  now  be  regarded  as  reasonably 
clear,  and  these  must  now  be  followed.  When 
Nineveh  fell  it  was  not  at  the  behest  of  Baby¬ 
lonia  only.  A  new  power,  fresh  from  a  long 
rest  and  not  wasted  by  civilization’s  insidious 
pressure,  had  contributed  to  that  overthrow. 

1  Nabonidus,  the  Great  Cylinder  of  Abu-Habba,  col.  ii,  line  25.  Com¬ 
pare  Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  iii,  part  2,  p.  103.  Langdon,  op.  cit. ,  pp.  222, 


562  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


This  new  people  was  the  Medes,  and  in  the 
years  that  followed  the  Medes  had  not  been 
idle.  To  them  had  fallen  in  the  partition  of 
the  Assyrian  empire  the  whole  of  the  old  land 
of  Assyria,  with  northern  Babylonia.  The 
very  ownership  of  such  territory  as  this  was 
itself  a  call  to  the  making  of  an  empire.  To  this 
the  Medes  had  set  themselves,  and  with  extra¬ 
ordinary  and  rapid  success.  While  Nebuchad¬ 
rezzar  lived  they  maintained  peace  with  him 
and  offered  no  threats  against  Babylonia.  To 
the  north  and  west  their  forces  spread.  These 
movements  we  cannot  trace  in  detail.  From 
the  Medes,  who  were  men  of  action,  and  not 
writers  of  books,  there  have  come  to  us  no 
stories  of  conquest.  From  the  events  which 
follow,  of  which  we  have  Babylonian  accounts, 
we  can  trace  with  reasonable  certainty,  even 
though  broadly,  their  progress.  As  early  as 
560  B.  C.  their  border  had  been  extended  as 
far  west  as  the  river  Halys,  which  served  as 
the  boundary  between  them  and  the  kingdom 
of  Lydia,  over  which  Croesus,  of  proverbial 
memory,  was  now  king  (560-546  B.  C.).  If 
no  violent  end  came  to  a  victorious  people 
such  as  the  Medes  now  were,  it  could  not  be 
long  before  the  rich  plains,  the  wealthy  cities, 
and  the  great  waterways  of  Babylonia  would 
tempt  them  southward  and  the  great  clash 
would  come.  If  to  such  brute  force  of  con¬ 
quest  as  they  had  already  abundantly  shown 


LAST  YEARS  OF  CHALDEAN  EMPIRE  563 


they  should  add  gifts  for  organization  and  ad¬ 
ministration,  there  was  no  reason  why  all 
their  possessions  should  not  be  welded  again 
into  a  great  empire,  as  the  Assyrians  had 
done  before  with  a  large  part  of  them.  Their 
king  was  now  Astyages,1  or,  as  the  Babylonian 
inscriptions  name  him,  Ishtuvegu.2  Our  knowl¬ 
edge  of  him  is  too  scant  to  admit  of  a  judg¬ 
ment  as  to  his  character.  A  man  of  war  of 
extraordinary  capacity  he  certainly  was,  but 
perhaps  little  else.  However  that  may  be, 
he  was  not  to  accomplish  the  ruin  of  Nabo- 
nidus.  What  he  had  gained  was  to  be  used 
to  that  end  by  another,  and  he  was  now  pre¬ 
paring. 

In  Anshan,  a  province  in  the  land  of  Elam, 
a  great  man  had  arisen.  From  Elam  for  cen¬ 
turies  no  impulse  had  been  given  in  the  world’s 
history.  The  people  had  rested.  Kings  had 
ruled  over  them,  indeed,  but  their  influence 
had  been  little  beyond  their  own  borders. 
When  Cyrus  was  born,  son  of  Kambyses,  a 
place  was  ready  for  him,  and  greatness  soon 
found  it.  Cyrus,  king  of  Anshan — the  title 
had  no  high  sound,  and  to  it  were  added  no 
other  titles  of  rule  in  other  lands.  But  in 
Cyrus  the  primary  power  of  conquest  was 
strong.  He  began  at  once  a  career  of  almost 
unparalleled  conquest,  and  later  displayed  in 

1  See  Frag.  29,  Muller-Didot,  Ctesioe  Cnidii  Fragmenta,  p.  45. 

2  Nabonidus,  the  Great  Cylinder  of  Abu-Habba,  col.  i,  line  32,  Keilin- 
§chrift.  Bibl.,  iii,  part  2,  pp.  98,  99.  Langdon,  op.  cit.,  pp.  220,  221. 


564  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


extraordinary  degree  the  power  so  to  organize 
the  result  of  one  victory  as  to  make  it  con¬ 
tributory  to  the  next.  His  first  foe  was  naturally 
Astyages,  king  of  the  Medes,  whose  attention 
he  had  attracted.  We  do  not  know  what  deeds 
of  Cyrus  led  Astyages  to  determine  upon 
attacking  him,  whether  he  had  made  reprisals 
upon  the  borders  of  the  empire  of  the  Medes, 
or  had  shown  elsewhere  ability  which  might 
later  prove  dangerous  to  the  aspirations  of 
the  Medes.  In  553  B.  C.  Astyages  led  an  army 
against  this  new  Asiatic  conqueror.  All  the 
advantages  seemed  to  lie  upon  the  side  of 
Astyages.  He  had  victories  behind  him,  he 
had  the  levies  of  an  empire  already  vast  on 
which  to  draw.  But  these  and  all  other  ad¬ 
vantages  were  overturned  by  treachery.  His 
own  troops  rebelled  against  him  and  delivered 
him  into  the  hands  of  Cyrus,1  and  that  bound 
as  a  prisoner.  Cyrus  then  took  Ecbatana, 
sacked  it,2  and  overwhelmed  the  state.  In 
an  hour  he  had  leaped  from  the  position  of 
king  of  Anshan,  a  rank  hardly  greater  than 
petty  prince,  to  the  proud  position  of  king  of 
the  Medes.  A  whole  empire  already  made 
was  his.  Well  might  he  assume  a  new  title 
and  call  himself  king  of  the  Parsu — out  of 
which  has  come  to  us  the  word  “Persians.” 

1  Annals  of  Nabonidus  col.  ii,  lines  1,  2.  See  Hagen,  “Keilschrift- 
urkunden  zur  Gesehichte  des  Konigs  Cyrus,”  Beitrdge  zur  Assyriologie, 
ii,  pp.  218,  219. 

2  Ibid.,  col.  ii,  lines  3,  4. 


LAST  YEARS  OF  CHALDEAN  EMPIRE  565 

King  of  the  Persians — in  that  new  title  of 
Cyrus  was  gathered  all  the  impetus  of  a  new 
and  terrible  force  in  the  world.  For  his  coming 
the  day  of  judgment  had  waited.  The  day 
of  great  Semitic  conquerors  was  waning,  a  new 
conqueror  of  the  great  unknown  Indo-European 
races  had  arisen,  and  a  new  day  had  thus 
dawned.  What  did  it  mean  for  humanity — 
for  civilization? 

The  sudden  victory  of  Cyrus  over  the  em¬ 
pire  of  the  Medes  filled  the  whole  western 
world  with  alarm.  The  empire  of  Cyrus  now 
extended  to  the  Halys,  and  beyond  that  river 
was  Lydia.  How  soon  Cyrus  would  cross  it 
none  knew.  He  was  probably  only  waiting 
until  he  could  assimilate  the  forces  of  the 
Medes  with  his  own;  for  such  a  man  could 
be  content  with  no  dominion  that  was  less  than 
world-wide.  Croesus  determined  to  strike  the 
first  blow  himself,  but  not  single-handed.  He 
formed  a  confederation  in  the  spring  of  546, 
and  almost  every  power  of  significance  in  the 
whole  west  joined  it.  Amasis,  king  of  Egypt; 
Nabonidus,  king  of  Babylon;1  Croesus,  king 
of  Lydia,  and  even  his  friendly  allies,  the 
Spartans2 — these  formed  an  array  that  must 
be  invincible.  The  leader  was  Croesus,  and 
that  he  should  fail  seemed  impossible.  Behind 
him  was  an  army  that  had  never  known  defeat, 


1  Herodotus  i,  77. 

2  Herodotus  i,  69 


566  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


beneath  him  were  the  sure  oracles  of  Delphi. 
There  were,  however,  very  great  and  most 
serious  weaknesses  in  his  armor.  The  Cilician 
gates  were  in  the  hands  of  the  Syennesis1  of 
Cilicia,  and  they  were  absolutely  necessary 
for  a  junction  of  the  forces  of  Babylonia  and 
Egypt  to  those  of  Lydia.  There  was  indeed 
little  to  hope  for  from  Babylonia  in  any  case, 
but  even  that  little  was  impossible  if  the  gates 
were  held  by  a  force  hostile  to  the  designs 
of  Croesus,  nor  could  Egypt,  however  anxious 
Amasis  might  be  to  erect  some  barrier  against 
Persia,  send  so  much  as  a  detachment  into 
Asia  Minor  until  the  indispensable  pass  through 
the  Taurus  were  held  open  by  friendly  hands. 
But  by  this  time  the  Syennesis  had  already 
fallen  into  the  sweep  of  the  embracing  net  of 
Cyrus,  and  had  declared  himself  an  ally  of 
Cyrus  and  accepted  the  obligation  of  paying 
an  annual  tribute  to  Persia. 

In  the  month  of  Nisan  (March- April)  Cyrus 
made  his  levy  of  troops,  and  passing  down  the 
gorges  of  Mount  Rowandiz  crossed  the  Tigris 
near  Nineveh,  and  made  his  way  swiftly  through 
Mesopotamia  and  the  Taurus  into  Cappadocia. 
Croesus  was  ill  prepared  to  meet  him.  The 
Spartans  were  meaning  to  send  help  and  were 
equipping  a  fleet  to  be  dispatched  as  soon  as 
the  season  was  favorable2,  but  their  reinforce- 

1  Syennesis  is  not  a  proper  name,  as  used  to  be  supposed,  but  a  native 
title  Hellenized,  the  original  form  of  which  is  unknown, 

2  Herodotus  i,  lxx,  lxxxiii. 


LAST  YEARS  OF  CHALDEAN  EMPIRE  567 


ment  was  not  yet  secured,  and  he  dare  not 
wait  longer  for  help  from  any  of  his  allies; 
with  trust  in  his  gods  and  in  his  own  forces 
Croesus,  with  his  cavalry,  and  a  small  army 
of  Asiatics  with  some  Greeks  of  the  Ionian  coasts 
crossed  the  Halys1  and  seized  Pteria,  deporting 
its  inhabitants  and  desolating  the  country. 
To  him,  in  that  neighborhood,  came  a  messenger 
from  Cyrus,  offering  to  him  life  and  a  confirma¬ 
tion  in  his  kingdom  if  he  took  the  oath  of 
vassalage.  Croesus,  in  proud  madness,  refused 
and  Cyrus  struck  in  force,  driving  him  from 
the  field. 

Cyrus  pursued,  and  again  Croesus  gave  battle, 
in  the  valley  of  Hermos.  In  the  army  of  Cyrus 
were  bodies  of  men  mounted  on  camels;  be¬ 
fore  them  stood  the  Lydian  cavalry.  It  was 
the  barbarous  east  mounted  upon  its  uncanny 
and  clumsy  animal  of  the  desert  opposed  to 
the  civilization  of  the  west  with  its  clean¬ 
limbed  horses.  But  the  barbarians  on  camels 
threw  the  cavalry  into  confusion,  and  again 
was  Croesus  beaten,  and  this  time  overwhelmed. 
He  retreated  to  the  citadel  of  Sardes,  and 
sent  messengers  to  his  allies  begging  for  as¬ 
sistance,  which,  naturally  enough,  never  came. 
In  fourteen  days  Sardes  fell,  and  Croesus  was 

1  Herodotus  (i,  lxxv)  reports  an  interesting  legend  that  Thales  dug 
a  trench  behind  the  army  of  Croesus,  and  diverting  the  course  of  the 
Halys  into  it  left  Croesus  on  the  right  bank  without  the  dangers  and 
labors  of  fording  the  stream!  It  is  a  pity  that  science  denies  to  the 
modern  historian  the  privilege  of  adorning  his  narrative  with  stories 
so  delightful. 


568  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


in  the  hands  of  Cyrus.1  The  Lydian  empire 
was  also  swallowed  up  in  Persia.  Croesus  was 
taken  in  the  autumn  of  546,  and  before  the 
end  of  545  the  entire  peninsula  of  Asia  Minor 
was  a  part  of  the  Persian  empire,  divided  into 
satrapies  and  administered  with  a  strong  hand. 
Even  the  isles  of  the  sea  were  giving  submis¬ 
sion  to  the  power  that  had  arisen  out  of  the 
wilds  of  Asia,  ghostlike  in  a  night,  whose  ruler 
was  but  a  year  before  unknown  in  name  even 
to  the  Greeks  of  the  mainland,  who  had  now 
become  his  subjects. 

Cyrus  had  now  fully  prepared  the  way  for 
the  absorption  of  Babylonia,  with  its  valuable 
Syrophcenician  states  reaching  even  to  the 
Mediterranean.  During  all  these  years  Na- 
bonidus  had  been  building  temples  and  search¬ 
ing  out  interesting  bits  of  ancient  history. 
If  he  had  been  consolidating  his  defenses  and 
preparing  to  hold  his  empire  against  this  wave 
of  barbarians,  the  course  of  human  history 
might  have  been  widely  different.  Even  Greece 
might  have  been  spared  the  need  of  its  heroic 
sacrifice  in  the  defense  of  all  the  west  had 
gained,  from  the  hordes,  full-blooded  and  strong, 

1  According  to  a  story  preserved  by  Herodotus  (i,  lxxxv-lxxxvii), 
Croesus,  seeing  the  end  of  his  fortunes  near,  prepared  a  great  funeral 
pyre  and  assembled  upon  it  with  himself,  also  his  family,  his  nobles, 
and  his  choicest  possessions;  when  the  fire  was  started  Zeus  put  out 
the  fire  and  Apollo  bore  the  aged  king  with  his  daughters  away  into 
the  Hyperborean  country.  On  the  other  hand,  we  are  told  that  Croesus 
lived  on  as  the  friend  of  Cyrus  and  accepted  from  him  the  fief  of  Baren6 
in  Media  (Ktesias,  Frag.  29,  §  4,  in  Miiller-Didot,  Ctesioc  Cnidii  Frag- 
menta,  p.  40). 


LAST  YEARS  OF  CHALDEAN  EMPIRE  569 


out  of  the  mountains  of  Elam.  But  Nabonidus 
had  not  prepared  for  war  or  for  defense,  and 
it  was  now  too  late.  In  the  year  549,  when 
the  Lydian  king  was  making  ready  to  fight 
to  the  bitter  end,  Nabonidus  was  in  Tema,  as 
the  Chronicle1  shows.  Of  548  we  know  nothing,2 
but  there  is  no  risk  in  supposing  that  he  was 
still  absorbed  in  temples  and  their  repairs. 
In  547,  so  hurried  the  years  along,  he  was 
still  in  Tema,  and  did  not  even  enter  Babylon 
to  pay  reverence  at  the  great  shrine  of  the 
gods  or  to  attend  to  the  pressing  business  of 
state.  On  the  fifth  day  of  the  month  of  Nisan 
the  king’s  mother  died  at  Dur-Karasu,  on  the 
Euphrates,  above  Sippar.  For  her  great  mourn¬ 
ing  was  made,  and  still  there  is  no  word  of 
setting  Babylon  or  the  land  in  preparation. 
Yet  in  this  same  year — and  the  Babylonian 
Chronicle  is  the  witness  for  it — the  threat  of 
Cyrus  against  Babylon  was  made  in  no  un¬ 
certain  manner.  On  the  fifteenth  day  of  the 
same  month  of  Nisan  he  crossed  the  Tigris 
below  Arbela  and  entered  Assyria.  Here  he 
took  possession  of  some  of  the  land  which  appears 
to  have  been  partly  or  wholly  independent  of 
Nabonidus.  The  name  which  Cyrus  gave  to 
the  land  is  broken  off  in  the  Chronicle,3  but 

1  Col.  ii,  line  5  (Hagen,  Beitrage  zur  Assyriologie,  ii,  p.  219;  Schrader, 
Keilinschrift.  Bibl.,  iii,  part  2,  p.  131). 

2  This  was  the  eighth  year  of  Nabonidus,  and  on  his  Chronicle  tablet 
nothing  is  said  at  all  of  this  year,  but  a  blank  space  of  about  two  lines 
is  left.  See  Hagen,  op.  cit.,  p.  218. 

*  Col.  ii,  line  16.  Hagen  says  that  there  were  remains  of  two  signs, 


I 


570  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

we  shall  probably  not  go  far  astray  if  we  con¬ 
jecture  that  some  petty  prince* 1  had  here  set 
up  a  little  kingdom.2 

Babylonian  soil  was  now  possessed  by  Cyrus. 
It  was  the  beginning  of  the  end.  The  next 
year  opens  with  the  same  melancholy  record 
that  the  king  was  in  Tema.3  His  son,  Bel- 
shar-usur,  was  with  the  army  in  Accad.4  From 
this  time  on  it  is  proper  to  say  that  he  was 
easily  the  chief  actor,  on  the  Babylonian  side, 
in  the  tragedy.  Of  him  we  know  little  indeed. 
To  the  Jews  his  name  was  an  object  of  hatred, 
for  he  had  shown  contempt  for  them  and  the 
God  of  whom  they  would  teach  the  world. 
But  from  the  Babylonian  point  of  view  he 
shines  forth  in  all  that  we  know  of  him  as  a 
man  intensely  national,  able,  earnest  in  defense  of 
his  native  land.  That  he  helped  greatly  to 
postpone  the  now  impending  ruin  is  highly 
probable.  But  he  had  no  support  from  his 
father — the  man  of  books.  In  this  year  (546), 
on  the  twenty-first  day  of  Si  van,  there  was 
some  difficulty  with  Elamites  in  Babylonia. 
We  do  not  know  its  meaning  or  its  results; 
for  the  Chronicle  is  broken  off  and  leaves  us 


and  the  first  seemed  to  be  su.  Was  not  the  second  probably  rit — the 
name  Assyria.  An  allusion  to  this  movement  is  preserved  in  Xenophon, 
Anabasis,  iii,  4,  7-12. 

1  Ibid. 

2  The  “king”  of  the  country  was  killed,  but  his  name  is  not  given. 
See  the  text  of  Hagen,  col.  ii,  line  17. 

3  Ibid.,  col.  ii,  line  19. 

4  Ibid.,  col.  ii,  line  22. 


LAST  YEARS  OF  CHALDEAN  EMPIRE  571 

in  tantalizing  fashion.  But  that  this  was 
only  another  move  in  the  same  general  plan 
is  at  least  probable.  After  this  year  the  Baby¬ 
lonian  Chronicle  again  breaks  off  abruptly, 
and  for  six  years  we  know  nothing  of  the 
progress  of  events.  Into  these  years  probably 
went  some  of  the  building  operations  which 
have  already  been  described.  Nabonidus  cared, 
or  seemed  to  care,  little  for  his  country.  It 
was  his  gods  only  that  filled  the  horizon  for 
him.1 

When  next  the  chronicler  resumes  his  story 
the  seventeenth  year  of  the  king’s  reign  has 
come.  It  is  the  year  539.  The  army  of  Cyrus 
is  somewhere  in  northern  Babylonia.  The 
great  Persian  empire  is  now  ready  to  complete 
and  round  out  its  borders  by  the  addition  of 
Babylonia,  with  even  its  imperial  capital.  The 
opening  lines  of  the  year’s  annals  are  broken 
off,  but  if  they  were  still  preserved,  we  should 
probably  not  find  in  them  the  fateful  words, 
“The  king  was  in  Tema.”  He  was  now  fully 
aroused  to  the  gravity  of  the  situation,  and 
was  active  in  measures  of  preparation.  It 
seems  almost  irony  to  say  that  these  measures 
were  not  for  practical  defense  against  a  terrible 
foe;  they  were  not  for  a  prolonged  siege.  Such. 

1  That  so  little  military  preparation  was  made  by  Belshazzar  or 
others  in  authority  is  partially  to  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  Cyrus 
was  long  regarded  as  an  ally  of  Nabonidus  (see  the  Nabonidus  Chron¬ 
icle,  i,  28-33).  It  was  the  Lydian  victory  that  opened  Chaldean  eyes, 
to  the  true  situation. 


572  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 

preparations  would  have  been  both  natural 
and  in  a  sense  easy  of  accomplishment.  Neb¬ 
uchadrezzar  had  made  Babylon  the  strongest 
fortress  in  all  the  world.  Even  a  small  force, 
of  brave  men  could  have  held  it  for  years 
against  any  force  which  Cyrus  could  muster; 
and  that  there  were  brave  men  still  in  Baby¬ 
lon’s  army  there  is  every  reason  to  believe. 
But  the  preparations  of  Nabonidus  were 
not  for  national  safety  and  independence, 
they  were  not  for  the  safety  of  men  at  all. 
In  the  crucial  hour  of  his  country’s  history 
his  whole  thought  was  of  gods,  and  not  of 
men.  He  would  save  gods,  men  might  save 
themselves  as  best  they  might.  From  every 
part  of  the  land  of  Babylonia  the  statues  of 
the  gods  were  hastily  removed  from  the  temples 
which  Nabonidus  had  built  with  such  exag¬ 
geration  of  painstaking  care,  as  well  as  from 
other  temples  upon  which  he  had  laid  no 
hand  of  restoration — if,  indeed,  there  were  any 
such.  From  Marad  and  from  Kish  came  gods 
of  whose  worth  or  power  the  history  of  Baby¬ 
lonia  has  heard  little;  from  Kharsag-kalama 
came  Belit  and  her  goddesses.  By  the  end  of 
the  month  Elul  all  the  gods  and  goddesses  had 
been  brought  to  Babylon.  Nabonidus  appears 
to  have  himself  remained  in  Sippar,  perhaps 
to  avoid  the  danger  of  capture  and  death  in 
the  capital,  whose  ultimate  fall  into  the  hands 
of  Cyrus  he  must  have  foreseen,  or  rather, 


II — 573 


pi  r  iu 


trr 


•  '  1 


vTor 


uifhva:  •  .1 


? ' 


:  V’  o: 


'•v  god*  w  ere  bo 


■  the  spaces  of  ] 
of  Cyrus  was  slow]'  :fl 

A/ 


' 


orft  i ft  fodhwfi  ;ifisb  bad-ad  ]o  y  .#1  .(Jr)  q  pog 
a  iPjinH  •)■])  nf  »  J>oe  ,itqi*w  iinolionici  iiiifiiobdail 
that  .omm  .oA  .muaeoM 

aJOffud  add  dcdd  iafwnuoob  eidd  noqjj  g.i  j] 

t  fe^toel  ,Inol  &t«Q  sd 

I>iU,  ^jJiow  «ooiq  yd  no  ,alqpaq  gfd  iol  %chr/j  odd  no 

^Jiy  aid  od  .jiaod  suo'ddjy’i  aid 
, ' |.|j1<|lv.daa  <d  i»m.i  odt  ydiit  add  ->hutri  sd  ,oS  os  mid 
aiH  .abw  aid  b:  riiunaqmoo  bn«  btrenCjs  ae  saiog 
,  n7/OJ,rJin'  ni  ammrumi 


7.7.  J'JJnnoo  dab  eittBd  jij o 

■'.ydiaiBlBO  a  nolydfiff  Yiid ddd  by-iaqa  eH  .noIvdidL 

A  IloanaM  J,  'N  y d  feltqqijg  dq^oiH] 

<J,“  ;  ■  it  .  .  7  r:  ,  f  1 


out  I, 
Ugba. 
ne  iid  ra  ■■■ 
city,  wb i  ,•  . 
The  fall  < 


t  be  background 

ill 


)1ToJ 


v  i  ■■■  tal i 
n  vSippar, 

* :  s  lion 


1  ^abonidas  C  ’ : , 

■  ifi .  B 
*  "l  ilt'  phru*  (N; 
out  battle. ”  ll  m 
ni..ke  Babylon  imj.  .  t 


Broken  cylinder  of  Cyrus,  king  of  Babylon  (538- 
529  B.  C.).  It  is  of  baked  clay,  inscribed  in  the 
Babylonian  cuneiform  script,  and  is  in  the  British 
Museum,  No.  90920. 

It  is  upon  this  document  that  the  famous  passage 
appears:  “Marduk  the  great  lord,  looked  joyously 
on  the  caring  for  his  people,  on  his  pious  works  and 
his  righteous  heart.  To  his  city  Babylon  he  caused 
him  to  go,  he  made  him  take  the  road  to  Babylon, 
going  as  a  friend  and  companion  at  his  side.  His 
numerous  troops,  in  number  unknown,  like  the 
waters  of  a  river,  marched  armed  at  his  side.  With¬ 
out  battle  and  conflict  he  permitted  him  to  enter 
Babylon.  He  spared  his  city  Babylon  a  calami ty.” 

[Photograph  supplied  by  W.  A.  Mansell  &  Co., 
London.] 


LAST  YEARS  OF  CHALDEAN  EMPIRE  573 

perhaps,  that  he  might  in  the  hour  of  his  dis¬ 
tress  lean  heavily  on  the  arm  of  Shamash, 
whom  he  had  so  signally  honored  in  the  mag¬ 
nificent  temple  of  E-babbara. 

While  gods  were  hastening  thus  to  be  crowded 
into  the  spaces  of  Babylon’s  temples  the  army 
of  Cyrus  was  slowly  marching  on,  and  appar¬ 
ently  without  resistance.  Would  all  Baby¬ 
lonia  be  his  without  one  single  blow?  It  were 
a  disgrace  indeed,  and  the  land  was  spared 
that  final  ignominy.  When  Cyrus  reached 
the  city  of  Upi  the  army  of  Accad  opposed  his 
advance,1  but  whether  Bel-shar-usur,  who  had 
commanded  it,  was  now  in  the  van  does  not 
appear.  The  opposition  was  in  vain,  and  Cyrus 
drove  it  before  him  and  moved  southward 
resistlessly.  Sippar  was  taken,  without  a  blow, 
on  the  fourteenth  day  of  Tammuz  (June-July) 
and  Nabonidus  fled.  Two  days  later  the  van 
of  the  army  of  Cyrus  entered  Babylon,  as 
the  gates  swung  open  without  resistance2  to 
admit  it.  Cyrus  himself  was  not  in  command, 
but  had  remained  in  the  background  while 
Ugbaru  (Gobryas),  governor  of  Gutium,  led 
the  advance.  Nabonidus  was  taken  in  the 
city,  whither  he  had  fled  from  Sippar. 

The  fall  of  Babylon  in  this  fashion  is  one 

1  Nabonidus  Chronicle,  iii,  lines  12,  13;  Hagen,  op.  cit.,  p.  223;  Keilin- 
schrift.  Bibl.,  iii,  part  2,  pp.  133-135. 

2  The  phrase  (Nabonidus  Chronicle,  iii,  line  15)  is  bala  saltum,  “with¬ 
out  battle.”  It  is  a  sorry  end  after  all  Nebuchadrezzar’s  efforts  to 
make  Babylon  impregnable. 


574  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


of  the  surprises  of  history.  That  a  city  which 
had  bred  warriors  enough  to  rule  the  whole 
civilized  world  should  at  last  lay  down  its 
arms  and  tamely  submit — it  is  impossible, 
and  yet  it  is  true.  Nay,  more  is  true:  Ugbaru 
had  indeed  entered  the  city  without  the  use 
of  force,  but  there  is  no  word  that  his  presence 
was  welcome.  He  must  surely  have  been  re¬ 
ceived  with  many  a  surly  look,  with  mutter- 
ings  of  hate,  with  ill-concealed  disgust.  But 
on  the  third  day  of  Marcheshwan  Cyrus  held 
entry  into  the  city.  It  was  a  triumphal  entrance, 
and  all  Babylon  greeted  him  with  plaudits 
and  hailed  him  as  a  deliverer.  So  fickle  was 
the  populace,  so  ready  to  say,  “The  king  is 
dead;  long  live  the  king.” 

Babylon  was  now  in  the  possession  of  an 
entirely  new  race  of  men.  The  Indo-Europeans, 
silent  for  centuries,  had  come  at  last  to  do¬ 
minion.  Nineveh,  the  greatest  center  for  the 
pure  Semitic  stock,  had  fallen  first;  it  was  now 
Babylon’s  hour,  and  Babylon  likewise  was 
fallen.  The  fall  of  a  city  which  had  long  wielded 
a  power  almost  world-wide  would  at  any 
period  be  a  matter  of  great  moment.  But 
this  fall  of  Babylon  was  even  more  than  this. 
Babylon  was  now  the  representative  city  not 
merely  of  a  world-wide  power,  it  was  the 
representative  of  Semitic  power.  The  Semites 
had  built  the  first  empire  of  commanding 
rank  in  the  world  when  Hammurapi  conquered 


LAST  YEARS  OF  .CHALDEAN  EMPIRE  575 

Sumer  and  Acead  and  made  Babylon  capital 
of  several  kingdoms  at  once.  Out  of  this 
center  had  gone  the  colonists  who  had  built 
another  and,  after  a  time,  a  great  empire  at 
Nineveh.  For  centuries  two  Semitic  centers 
of  power  had  vied  with  each  other  for  the 
dominion  of  the  world.  Both  had  held  it, 
each  in  his  turn.  For  nearly  a  century  Nineveh 
had  been  in  the  hands  of  another  race,  and 
the  Semitic  civilization  had  been  supplanted 
there.  Babylon  had  been  made  the  center 
of  a  new  world  power  by  the  Chaldean  people, 
but  they  also  were  Semites.  This  branch  of 
the  Semitic  people  had  had  a  short  lease  of 
power  indeed.  The  power  was  now  taken 
from  them  as  the  representatives  of  the  Semitic 
race.  Never  from  that  hour  until  the  age  of 
Islam  was  a  Semitic  power  to  command  a  world¬ 
wide  empire.  The  power  of  the  Semite  seemed 
hopelessly  broken  in  that  day,  and  that  alone 
makes  the  peaceful  fall  of  Babylon  a  momentous 
event. 

But  Babylon  stood  for  more  than  mere 
Semitic  power.  It  stood  in  a  large  sense  for 
Semitic  civilization.  As  has  been  so  often 
pointed  out  before  in  these  pages,  Assyria 
represented  far  more  than  Babylonia  the  prowess 
of  the  Semite  upon  fields  of  battle.  Babylon 
had  stood  for  Semitic  civilization,  largely  inter¬ 
mixed  with  many  elements,  yet  Semitic  after 
all.  Here  were  the  great  libraries  of  the  Sem- 


576  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


itic  race.  Here  were  the  scholars  who  copied 
so  painstakingly  every  little  omen  or  legend 
that  had  come  down  to  them  out  of  the  hoary 
past.  Here  were  the  men  who  calculated 
eclipses,  watched  the  moon’s  changes,  and 
looked  nightly  from  observatories  upon  the 
stately  march  of  constellations  over  the  sky. 

Here  were  the  priests  who  preserved  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  ancient  Sumerian  language,  that 
its  sad  plaints  and  solemn  prayers  might  be 
kept  for  use  in  temple  worship.  Much  of  all 
this  was  worthy  of  preservation — if  not  for 
any  large  usefulness,  certainly  for  its  record 
of  human  progress  upward.  All  this  was  now 
fallen  into  alien  hands.  Would  it  be  preserved? 
Would  it  be  ruthlessly  or  carelessly  destroyed? 

The  greatest  thoughts  of  the  Semitic  mind  and 
the  greatest  emotions  of  its  heart  were  not, 
indeed,  Babylonian,  and  even  if  they  were,  they 
could  not  die.  Not  for  many  centuries  would  the 
Semite  be  able  to  found  another  such  center.  It  j 
was  indeed  a  solemn  hour  of  human  history. 

The  glory  of  Babylon  is  ended.  The  long 
procession  of  princes,  priests,  and  kings  has 
passed  by.  No  city  so  vast  had  stood  on  the 
world  before  it.  No  city  with  a  history  so 
long  has  even  yet  appeared.  From  the  be¬ 
ginnings  of  human  history  it  had  stood.  It 
was  in  other  hands  now,  and  it  would  soon 
be  a  shapeless  mass  of  ruins,  standing  alone 
in  a  sad,  untilled  desert. 


APPENDIX 

A 


LITERATURE 

The  references  given  in  footnotes  indicate 
with  sufficient  clearness  the  bibliography  of 
the  subject,  but  for  convenience  of  reference 
the  titles  of  books  dealing  directly  with  the 
history  are  here  assembled,  accompanied  by 
brief  comments  to  facilitate  their  use. 

1.  Excavations  and  Decipherment 

Kaulen,  Fr.  Assyrien  und  Babylonien  nach  den  neuesten  Ent- 
deckungen,  5th  ed.  Freiburg  im  Breisgau,  1899. 

[The  account  of  excavations  and  discoveries  is  on  pp.  18-41 
and  74-150.  It  is  well  presented,  but  pays  little  attention 
to  the  work  of  early  travelers,  and  takes  but  slight  notice  of 
the  most  recent  work,  except  that  of  the  University  of  Penn¬ 
sylvania,  which  is  well  handled.] 

Hommel,  Fr.  Geschichte  Babyloniens  und  Assyriens.  Berlin, 
1885. 

[The  sections  relating  to  discovery  and  decipherment  are 
on  pp.  58-134,  and  are  more  detailed  than  those  of  Kaulen.] 
Everetts,  B.  T.  A.  New  Light  on  the  Holy  Land.  London,  1891. 

[Contains  on  pp.  79-129  a  very  useful  narrative  of  discover¬ 
ies  and  decipherment,  with  much  attention  to  early  travelers.] 
Menant,  Joachim.  Les  Langues  perdues  de  la  Perse  et  de  l’Assyric. 
Paris,  1885. 

Booth,  A.  J.  Discovery  and  Decipherment  of  the  trilingual 
Cuneiform  Inscriptions.  London,  1902. 

[A  most  exhaustive  and  valuable  account  of  the  processes 
of  decipherment.] 


577 


578  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


Fossey,  C.  Manuel  d’Assyriologie  I.  Paris,  1904. 

[Contains  an  account  both  of  the  excavations  and  of  the 
decipherment.] 

Zehnpfund,  Rudolf.  Die  Wiederendeckung  Nineves,  Der  Alte 
Orient  Jahrgang  5,  Heft  3.  Leipzig,  1903 

Messerschmidt,  Leopold.  Die  Entzifferung  der  Keilschrift. 
(Der  Alte  Orient  Jahrgang  5,  Heft  2.)  Leipzig,  1903. 

Bezold,  Carl,  2te  Auflage.  Ninive  und  Babylon.  Leipzig,  1903. 

[An  excellent  general  introduction  with  accounts  of  the 
discoveries  and  decipherment  as  well  as  of  the  life  and  liter¬ 
ature  of  the  people.  Beautifully  illustrated.] 

Zehnpfund,  Rudolf.  Babylonien  in  seinen  wichstigsten  Ruinen- 
statten.  (Der  Alte  Orient.  Jahrgang  11,  Heft  3  and  4.) 
Leipzig,  1910. 

Koldewey,  Robert.  Das  wieder  erstehende  Babylon.  Die 
bisherigen  ergebnisse  der  deutschen  Ausgrabungen.  Leipzig, 
1913. 

Hilprecht,  Hermann  V.  Explorations  in  Bible  Lands.  Phil¬ 
adelphia,  1903. 

2.  The  Script  and  Languages 

Delitzsch,  Friedrich.  Die  Entstehung  des  altesten  Schrift- 
systems  oder  der  Ursprung  der  Keilschriftzeichen.  Leipzig, 
1897. 

- Kleine  Sumerische  Sprachlehre  fur  nichtassyriologen.  Gram- 

inatik,  Vokabular,  Textproben.  Leipzig,  1914. 

- Grundziige  der  Sumerischen  Grammatilk.  Leipzig,  1914. 

- Sumerisches  Glossar.  Leipzig,  1914. 

Toscanne,  Paul.  Les  signes  sumeriens  derives.  Paris,  1905. 

Rogers,  Robert  W.  Cuneiform.  Encyclopaedia  Britannica. 
Eleventh  edition,  VII,  pp.  629-632.  Cambridge  and  New 
York,  1910. 

Hommel,  Fritz.  Der  hieroglyphische  Ursprung  der  Keilschrift¬ 
zeichen.  Paris,  1897. 

Ball,  Charles  J.  Babylonian  Hieroglyphs.  (Proceedings  of  the 
Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology  XX,  pp.  9-23.) 

Thureau-Dangin,  Francois.  Recherches  sur  l’origine  de  l’ecriture 
cuneiforme.  Paris,  1898.  Supplement.  Paris,  1899. 


APPENDIX 


579 


Peiser,  F.  E.  Zur  Frage  nach  der  Enstehung  der  Keilschrift. 
Mitteilungen  der  Vorderasiatischen  Gesellschaft.  1897.  Heft 
4,  pp.  21ff. 

Barton,  George  Aaron.  The  Origin  of  some  Cuneiform  Signs. 
Old  Testament  and  Semitic  Studies  in  memory  of  William 
Rainey  Harper.  II,  pp.  229-258. 

- The  Origin  and  Development  of  Babylonian  Writing. 

Part  I.  A  genealogical  table  of  Babylonian  and  Assyrian 
Signs  with  indices.  Part  II.  A  classified  List  of  simple 
ideographs  with  analysis  and  discussions.  (Beitrage  zur 
assyriologie  und  semitischen  Sprachwissenschaft  IX,  1,  2. 
Leipzig,  1913.) 

Langdon,  Stephen.  A  Sumerian  Grammar  and  Chrestomathy, 
with  a  vocabulary  of  the  principal  roots  in  Sumerian,  and  a 
list  of  the  most  important  syllabic  and  vowel  transcriptions. 
Paris,  1911. 

Delitzsch,  Friedrich.  Assyrische  Grammatik  mit  Paradigmen 
ijbungsstucken,  Glossar  und  Litteratur.  Berlin,  1889.  2te  Auf- 
lage,  Berlin,  1906. 

- - Assyrische  Lesestiicke.  Leipzig,  1876.  5te  Auflage,  Leipzig. 

King,  Leonard  William.  First  Steps  in  Assyrian.  A  Book  for 
beginners,  being  a  series  of  historical,  mythological,  religious, 
magical,  epistolary  and  other  texts  printed  in  cuneiform 
characters  with  interlinear  transliteration  and  translation  and 
a  sketch  of  Assyrian  Grammar,  sign  list  and  vocabulary. 
London,  1898. 

- Assyrian  Language.  Easy  Lessons  in  the  Cuneiform  In¬ 
scriptions.  London,  1901. 

Ungnad,  Arthur.  Babylonisch- Assyrische  Grammatik  mit  fibungs- 
buch  in  transcription.  Mfinchen,  1906. 

Meissner,  Bruno.  Kurzgefasste  Assyrische  Grammatik.  Leip¬ 
zig,  1907.  1 

- Die  Keilschrift  (Sammlung  Goschen  No.  708).  Berlin  and 

Leipzig,  1913. 

[A  most  remarkable  little  book  with  chapters  on  Die  Ent- 
zifferung  der  Keilschrift.  Die  Entstehung  der  Keilschrift. 
Die  Sumerische  Sprache.  Die  babylonisch-assyrische  Kcil- 
schrift.  Die  babylonisch-assyrische  Sprache.  Uberblick  fiber 
die  Literatur.  Die  Ausbreitung  der  Keilschrift.  rl  he  best 
introduction  to  the  subject.] 


580  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


3.  Literature 

Bezold,  Carl.  Kurzgefasster  Uberblick  fiber  die  babylonisch- 
assyrischen  Literatur.  Leipzig,  1886. 

[Technical,  and  especially  written  for  Assyriologists,  still 
of  fundamental  importance.] 

Harper,  Robert  Francis.  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  Literature. 
New  York,  1901. 

[Contains  long  selections  from  the  literature  in  English 
translation.  Useful.] 

Teloni,  Bruto.  Letteratura  Assira.  (Manuali  Hoepli  Nos.  337, 
338.)  Milan,  1903. 

Weber,  Otto.  Die  Literatur  der  Babylonier  und  Assyrer.  Ein 

•  • 

Uberblick.  Leipzig,  1907. 

[The  best  book  on  its  subject.  Excellent.] 

4.  Chronology 

Ginzel,  F.  K.  Handbuch  der  mathematischen  und  Technischen 
Chronologie.  Das  Zeitrechnungswesen  der  Volker.  I  Band: 
Zeitrechnung  der  Babylonier,  Agypter,  Mohammedaner,  Pcr- 
ser,  Inder,  Siidostasiaten,  Chinesen,  Japaner  und  Zentralamer- 
ikaner.  II  Band:  Zeitrechnung  der  Juden,  der  Naturvolker, 
der  Romer,  und  Griechen  sowie  Nachtrage  zum  I  Bande. 
Ill  Band:  Zeitrechnung  der  Makedonier,  Kleinasier  und 
Syrer,  der  Germanen  und  Kelten,  des  Mittelalters,  der  Byzan- 
tiner  (und  Russen)  Armenier,  Kopten,  Abessinier,  Zeitrech¬ 
nung  der  neueren  Zeit,  sowie  Nachtrage  zu  dem  drei  Banden. 

[The  standard  Handbook.  The  Nachtrage  in  volumes  ii 
and  iii  must  not  be  overlooked.] 

Sayce,  A.  H.  The  Astronomy  and  Astrology  of  the  Babylonians. 
(Transactions  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology  III,  1874.) 

- and  Bosanquet.  The  Babylonian  Astronomy.  (Monthly 

Notices  of  the  Royal  Astronomical  Society,  XL,  1880.) 

Kugler,  F.  X.  Sternkunde  und  Sterndienst  in  Babel.  Munster. 

Jeremias,  Alfred.  Handbuch  der  altorientalischen  Geistes- 
kultur.  Leipzig,  1913. 

[Chapter  V.  Astronomie  und  Astrologie  im  babylonischen 
Kulturkreis,  pp.  130ff.  VII.  Der  Kalendar,  pp.  153ff.  IX. 
Die  Weltzeitalter,  pp.  193ff.  XVII.  Chronologie  und  astral- 
mythologischer  Stilder  geschriebenen  Geschichte,  pp.  307ff. 
XVIII.  Kalendarfeste  und  Ivalendarfestspiele,  pp.  312ff.] 


APPENDIX 


581 


5.  History 

(a)  Babylonia  and  Assyria 

Hommel,  Fr.  Geschichte  Babyloniens  und  Assyriens.  Berlin, 
1885. 

- Articles  on  “Babylonia”  and  “Assyria,”  Dictionary  of  the 

Bible,  ed.  Hastings,  vol.  i.  New  York,  1898. 

Tiele,  C.  P.  Babylonisch-Assyrische  Geschichte.  Gotha,  1886. 

[A  work  of  great  ability  and  distinction,  and,  though  super¬ 
seded  in  parts  by  more  recent  work,  still  indispensable  for 
the  advanced  student.] 

Winckler,  Hugo.  Geschichte  Babyloniens  und  Assyriens.  Leip¬ 
zig,  1892. 

[An  important  book  to  be  used  in  supplement  of  Tiele. 
Very  suggestive  but  to  be  used  with  caution.] 

- History  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria.  Translated  and  edited 

by  James  A.  Craig.  New  York,  1907. 

- Die  Volker  Vorderasiens.  (Der  Alte  Orient,  1.  Jahrgang, 

Heft  1.)  Leipzig,  1899. 

- Die  Politische  Entwickelung  Babyloniens  und  Assyriens. 

(Der  Alte  Orient,  2.  Jahrgang,  Heft  1.)  Leipzig,  1900. 

[Contains  in  but  thirty-one  pages  an  illuminating  sketch  of 
the  development  of  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  history.] 

- Geschichte  der  Stadt  Babylon.  (Der  Alte  Orient.  Jahr¬ 
gang  6.  Heft  1.) 

King,  Leonard  William.  Articles  “Babylonia”  and  “Assyria” 
in  Encyclopaedia  Bibiica,  edited  by  the  Rev.  T.  K.  Cheyne 
and  J.  Sutherland  Black,  vol.  i.  New  York,  1899. 

[Very  valuable  outlines  of  the  history,  supplemented  also 
by  separate  articles  on  important  reigns,  such  as  that  of 
Ashurbanipal.] 

- A  History  of  Sumer  and  Akkad.  An  account  of  the  early 

races  of  Babylonia  from  prehistoric  times  to  the  foundation 
of  the  Babylonian  monarchy.  London,  1910. 

[This  is  the  first  volume  of  a  comprehensive  history  of  Baby¬ 
lonia  and  Assyria,  and  contains  a  most  valuable  and  important 
survey  of  the  early  period,  with  numerous  illustrations.] 

- Records  of  the  reign  of  Tukulti-Ninib  I.  King  of  Assyria 

about  B.  C.  1275.  London,  1904. 

[Studies  in  Eastern  History,  No.  1.] 


582  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


Muerdter  und  Delitzsch.  Geschichte  von  Babylonien  und 
Assyrien,  2.  Aufl.  Calw  und  Stuttgart,  1891. 

Rogers,  Robert  W.  Outlines  of  the  History  of  Early  Babylonia. 
Leipzig,  1895. 

[Now  largely  replaced  by  the  present  work.] 

Sayce,  A.  H.  A  Primer  of  Assyriology.  New  York,  1895. 

[Useful  introductory  outline.] 

Smith,  George.  The  History  of  Babylonia,  edited  and  brought 
up  to  date  by  the  Rev.  A.  H.  Sayce.  London  and  New  York, 
1895. 

[A  brief  and  useful  little  book,  but  already  needing  revi¬ 
sion.  A  similar  volume  by  George  Smith  on  Assyria,  from 
the  Earliest  Times  to  the  Fall  of  Nineveh,  has  not  been  revised.] 

Johns,  C.  H.  W.  Ancient  Babylonia.  Cambridge,  1913. 

- Ancient  Assyria.  Cambridge,  1912. 

Ulmer,  Friedrich.  Hammurabi,  sein  Land  und  seine  Zeit.  (Der 
Alte  Orient,  Jahrgang  9,  Heft  1.)  Leipzig,  1907. 

Delitzsch,  Friedrich,  Asurbanipal  und  die  assyrische  Kultur 
seiner  Zeit.  (Der  Alte  Orient,  Jahrgang  11,  Heft  1.)  Leipzig, 
1909. 

Weber,  Otto,  Sanherib,  Konig  von  Assyrien  705-681.  (Der  Alte 
Orient,  Jahrgang  6,  Heft  3.)  Leipzig,  1905. 

Hunger,  Johannes,  Heerwesen  und  Kriegflihrung  der  Assyrer,  auf 
der  Hohe  ihrer  Macht.  (Der  Alte  Orient,  Jahrgang  12,  Heft  4.) 
Leipzig,  1911. 

Goodspeed,  George  Stephen.  History  of  the  Babylonians  and 
Assyrians.  New  York,  1903. 

Murison,  R.  G.  Babylonia  and  Assyria.  Edinburgh,  1901. 

[Bible  Class  Primers.] 

Olmstead,  A.  T.  Assyrian  Historiography.  The  University  of 
Missouri  Bulletin.  Social  Science  Series.  Volume  I,  Number 
1.  Columbia,  Missouri,  1914. 

[An  incisive  and  very  instructive  investigation  of  the  sources 
of  Assyrian  History.] 

( b )  General  Histories 

The  following  books,  while  treating  the  his¬ 
tory  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria  only  as  part 


APPENDIX 


583 


of  the  general  history  of  the  Orient,  are, 
nevertheless,  important  as  discussing  phases 
of  the  history  supplementary  to  the  special 
histories,  or  as  being  written  by  Assyriologists 
who  have  given  special  emphasis  to  Assyria 
and  Babylonia: 

Helmolt,  Hans  F.  Weltgeschi elite.  Leipzig,  1899. 

[Vol.  iii,  part  1,  contains  Das  Alte  West  Asien,  pp.  1-248, 
by  Dr.  Hugo  Winckler,  and  is  important  not  only  because  it 
is  attractively  written,  but  also  because  it  sometimes  gives  a 
newer  view  of  events  than  is  given  in  the  author’s  more  de¬ 
tailed  history  mentioned  above.  In  the  second  edition,  pub¬ 
lished  1913,  Winckler’s  work  has  been  revised  by  Dr.  Otto 
Weber  and  brought  fully  up  to  date.] 

Hommel,  Fr.  Abriss  der  Geschichte  des  alten  Orients  bis  auf  die 
Zeit  der  Perserkriege  (in  lwan  v.  Muller,  Handbuch  der  clas- 
sischen  Alterthumswissenschaft,  Bd.  iii),  2.  Aufl.  1895. 

- Geschichte  des  alten  Morgenlandes  (Sammlung  Goschen, 

No.  43).  Stuttgart,  1895.  Translated  into  English  as:  The 
Civilization  of  the  East  [Temple  Primers].  London,  1900. 

Krall,  Jakob.  Grundriss  der  Altorientalischen  Geschichte. 
Erster  Theil:  Bis  auf  Kyros.  Wien,  1899. 

[A  valuable  reference  book,  not  so  written  as  to  be  easily 
read.] 

Maspero,  G.  The  Dawn  of  Civilization,  Egypt  and  Chaldaca. 
Edited  by  A.  II.  Sayce,  translated  by  M.  L.  McClure.  New 
York,  1894.  Fifth  edition,  1910. 

- The  Struggle  of  the  Nations,  Egypt,  Syria,  and  Assyria. 

Edited  by  A.  H.  Sayce,  translated  by  M.  L.  McClure.  New 
York,  1897.  Second  edition,  1910. 

- The  Passing  of  the  Empires,  850  to  330  B.  C.  Edited  by 

A.  Ii.  Sayce,  translated  by  M.  L.  McClure.  New  York,  1900. 

[These  three  volumes  supersede  Professor  Maspero’s  former 
treatises.  They  are  magnificently  illustrated,  well  translated, 
and  are  admirably  supplied  with  references  to  the  literature 
of  every  question  relating  to  the  history.] 


584  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


McCurdy,  James  Frederick.  History,  Prophecy,  and  the  Monu¬ 
ments,  or  Israel  and  the  Nations.  Vol.  i.  To  the  Downfall 
of  Samaria.  New  York,  1894.  Vol.  ii.  To  the  Fall  of  Nineveh. 
New  York,  1896.  Vol.  iii,  completing  the  work,  promised  soon. 

Meyer,  Eduard.  Geschichte  des  Alterthums.  I  Band:  Ge- 
schichte  des  Orients  bis  zur  Begriindung  des  Perserreiches. 
Stuttgart,  1884.  II  Band:  Geschichte  des  Abendlandes  bis 
auf  die  Perserkriege.  Stuttgart,  1893. 

[The  first  volume  has  appeared  in  a  second  edition,  and  in 
two  parts  (Stuttgart  and  Berlin,  1909),  which  carried  the 
history  down  to  the  sixteenth  century  B.  C.  An  important 
work.] 

Hall,  H.  R.  The  Ancient  History  of  the  Near  East,  from  the 
earliest  times  to  the  battle  of  Salamis.  London,  1913. 

[An  admirable  and  most  useful  book.] 

Strehl,  Willy,  and  Soltau,  Wilhelm.  Grundriss  der  alten 
Geschichte  und  Quellenkunde.  Band  I:  Orientalische  und 
Griechischc  Geschichte.  Breslau,  1913. 

Sayce,  A.  H.  Early  Israel  and  the  Surrounding  Nations.  New 
York,  1899. 

[Babylonia  and  Assyria,  pp.  199-264.  This  interesting 
sketch  supplements  Smith’s  History  of  Babylonia  and  Sayce’s 
Primer  of  Assyriology.] 

Lehmann-IIaupt,  C.  F.  Israel,  seine  Entwickelung  im  Rahmen 
der  Weltgeschichte.  Tubingen,  1911. 

[An  important  book  by  a  noted  Assyriologist.] 


This  list  might  be  much  extended  if  works 
of  popular  character  were  added  to  it.  It  is, 
however,  intentionally  restricted  to  works  of 
scientific  importance,  based  upon  original 
sources. 

For  more  extended  bibliography  of  Baby¬ 
lonia  and  Assyria,  comprising  not  merely  the 
political  history,  but  also  religion,  literature, 
and  social  life,  the  following  books  may  be 
consulted : 


APPENDIX 


585 


Bezold,  Carl.  Kurzgefasster  Ueberblick  liber  die  Babylonisch- 
Assyrische  Literatur.  Leipzig,  1886. 

Delitzsch,  Friedrich.  Assyrian  Grammar.  London,  1889.  (Lit- 
teratura,  pp.  55*-78.*) 

Jastrow,  Morris,  Jr.  The  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria. 
Boston,  1898.  (Bibliography,  pp.  705-738.) 

[An  exhaustive  and  accurate  conspectus  of  the  literature 
up  to  1898.] 

Kaulen,  Fr.  Assyrien  und  Babylonien  naeh  den  neuesten  Ent- 
deckungen,  5th  ed.  Frieburg  im  Breisgau,  1899.  (Litteratur, 
pp.  284-304). 

[This  bibliography  is  arranged  chronologically,  and  is  ex¬ 
ceedingly  valuable  from  1620  to  1880,  though  many  additions 
ought  even  in  those  years  to  be  made.  After  1880  it  falls  off 
very  much  in  completeness,  and  extends  only  to  1889.  It 
is  a  pity  that  recent  editions  should  not  have  extended  it.] 

Lincke,  A.  Bericht  liber  die  Forschritte  der  Assyriologie  in  den 
Jahren  1886-1893.  Leipzig,  1894. 

The  current  bibliography  is  to  be  sought  in 
the  following: 

American  Journal  of  Semitic  Languages  and  Literatures  (Continu¬ 
ing  Hebraica).  Chicago:  The  University  of  Chicago  Press. 

[This  journal  is  published  quarterly  and  contains  an  accu¬ 
rate  and  exhaustive  bibliography.] 

Orientalische  Bibliographic,  bearbeitet  und  herausgegeben  von 
Dr.  Lucian  Scherman.  Berlin. 

[Semiannual.] 

Orientalische  Literatur-Zeitung,  herausgegeben  von  F.  E.  Peiser. 
Berlin. 

[Monthly.  Contains  a  very  valuable  review  of  the  journals 
and  proceedings  of  learned  societies.  ( Aus  gelehrten  Gesell- 
schaften  und  Zeitschriftenschau.)  ] 

Revue  d’ Assyriologie  et  d’Archeologie  Orientale.  Publ.  sous  la 
dir.  de  J.  Oppert,  E.  Ledrain  et  Leon  Heuzey.  Paris. 

[Appears  at  irregular  intervals.] 

Zeitsehrift  fur  Assyriologie,  und  verwandte  Gebrete,  in  verbindung 
mit  J.  Oppert  in  Paris,  Eb.  Schrader  in  Berlin,  und  anderen 
herausgegeben  von  Carl  Bezold  in  Heidelberg.  Berlin. 

[Quarterly.] 


586  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


B 

THE  DESTRUCTION  OF  SENNACHERIB’S  ARMY 

The  following  is  the  Egyptian  tradition  of 
the  great  pestilence  as  Herodotus  has  repro¬ 
duced  it: 

“The  next  king,  was  a  priest  of  Hephaistos,  called  Sethos.  This 
monarch  despised  and  neglected  the  warrior  class  of  the  Egyp¬ 
tians,  as  though  he  did  not  need  their  services.  Among  other 
indignities  which  he  offered  them  he  went  so  far  as  to  take  from 
them  the  lands  which  they  had  possessed  under  all  the  previous 
kings,  consisting  of  twelve  acres  of  choice  land  for  each  warrior. 
Afterward,  therefore,  when  Sennacherib,  king  of  the  Arabians 
and  Assyrians,  marched  his  vast  army  into  Egypt,  the  warriors 
one  and  all  refused  to  come  to  his  aid.  On  this  the  priest,  greatly 
distressed,  entered  into  the  inner  sanctuary,  and  before  the  image 
of  the  god  bewailed  the  fate  which  impended  over  him.  As  he 
wept  he  fell  asleep,  and  dreamed  that  the  god  came  and  stood  at 
his  side,  bidding  him  be  of  good  cheer,  and  go  boldly  forth  to  meet 
the  Arabian  host,  which  would  do  him  no  hurt,  as  he  himself  would 
send  those  who  should  help  him.  Sethos,  then,  relying  on  the, 
dream,  collected  such  of  the  Egyptians  as  were  willing  to  follow 
him,  who  were  none  of  them  warriors,  but  traders,  artisans,  and 
market  people;  and  with  these  marched  to  Pelusium,  where  the 
passes  are  by  which  the  country  is  entered,  and  there  pitched 
his  camp.  As  the  two  armies  lay  here  opposite  one  another  there 
came  in  the  night  a  multitude  of  field  mice,  which  devoured  all 
the  quivers  and  bowstrings  of  the  enemy  and  ate  the  thongs  by 
which  they  managed  their  shields.  Next  morning  they  commenced 
their  flight,  and  great  multitudes  fell,  as  they  had  no  arms  with 
which  to  defend  themselves.  There  stands  to  this  day  in  the 
temple  Hephaistos  a  stone  statue  of  the  king,  with  a  mouse  in 
his  hand,  and  an  inscription  to  this  effect:  ‘Look  on  me  and  learn 
to  reverence  the  gods.’ 

In  explanation  of  this  narrative  it  must  be 
remembered  that  the  mouse  was  a  symbol 

1  Herodotus,  ii,  chap.  141  ( History  of  Herodotus,  by  George  Rawlin- 
son,  London,  1880,  vol.  ii,  pp.  219,  220). 


APPENDIX 


587 


of  pestilence  (1  Sam.  vi,  5),  and  that  Apollo, 
as  the  plague-dealer,  is  called  Smintheus,  mouse- 
god. 

C 

THE  DEFENSES  OF  BABYLON 

The  investigations  of  the  last  few  years  have 
thrown  considerable  light  upon  the  walls  of 
the  city  of  Babylon,  and  the  excavations  con¬ 
ducted  by  the  German  expedition  on  the  site1 
are  likely  to  set  at  rest  some  long-standing 
subjects  of  controversy.  It  is  not  the  province 
of  this  book  to  discuss  questions  of  topography, 
but  the  narrative  of  Nebuchadrezzar’s  elaborate 
reconstruction  of  the  defenses  of  Babylon  may 
perhaps  be  made  more  clear  by  a  comparison 
with  the  two  chief  sources  of  our  knowledge 
which  are  here  given  in  translation. 

The  following  is  the  description  given  by 
Herodotus : 

“Assyria2  possesses  a  vast  number  of  great  cities,  whereof  the 
most  renowned  and  strongest  at  this  time  was  Babylon,  whither, 
after  the  fall  of  Nineveh,  the  seat  of  government  had  been  removed. 
The  following  is  a  description  of  the  place:  The  city  stands  on  a 
broad  plain,  and  is  an  exact  square,  a  hundred  and  twenty  furlongs 
in  length  each  way,3  so  that  the  entire  circuit  is  four  hundred  and 
eighty  furlongs.4  While  such  is  its  size,  in  magnificence  there  is 

1  See  above,  vol.  i,  pp.  313,  ff. 

2  Assyria  as  used  in  this  passage  manifestly  is  extended  so  as  to  in¬ 
clude  all  Babylonia.  See  above,  vol.  i,  p.  404. 

3  This  outer  wall  corresponds  to  Nimitti-Bel  in  the  descriptions  of 
Nebuchadrezzar,  and  Herodotus  could  not  have  seen  it,  for  it  had 
been  destroyed  by  Darius. 

4  Four  hundred  and  eighty  stadia  would  be  fifty-five  and  one  quarter 
miles,  which  is  impossible.  The  modern  ruins,  so  far  as  can  be  ascer¬ 
tained,  extend  from  north  to  south  a  distance  of  about  five  miles  only. 


588  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


no  other  city  that  approaches  it.  It  is  surrounded,  in  the  first 
place,  by  a  broad  and  deep  moat,  full  of  water,  behind  which  rises 
a  wall  fifty  royal  cubits  in  width  and  two  hundred  in  height.1  (The 
royal  cubit  is  longer  by  three  fingers’  breadth  than  the  common 
cubit.) 

“And  here  I  may  not  omit  to  tell  the  use  to  which  the  mold 
dug  out  of  the  great  moat  was  turned,  nor  the  manner  wherein 
the  wall  was  wrought.  As  fast  as  they  dug  the  moat  the  soil  which 
they  got  from  the  cutting  was  made  into  bricks,  and  when  a  suffi¬ 
cient  number  were  completed  they  baked  the  bricks  in  kilns.  Then 
they  set  to  building,  and  began  with  bricking  the  borders  of  the 
moat,  after  which  they  proceeded  to  construct  the  wall  itself,  using 
throughout  for  their  cement  hot  bitumen,  and  interposing  a  layer 
of  wattled  reeds  at  every  thirtieth  course  of  the  bricks.  On  the 
top,  along  the  edges  of  the  wall,  they  constructed  buildings  of  a 
single  chamber  facing  one  another,  leaving  between  them  room 
for  a  four-horse  chariot  to  turn.  In  the  circuit  of  the  wall  are 
a  hundred  gates,  all  of  brass,  with  brazen  lintels  and  side  posts. 
The  bitumen  used  in  the  work  was  brought  to  Babylon  from  the 
Is,  a  small  stream  which  flows  into  the  Euphrates  at  the  point 
where  the  city  of  the  same  name  stands,2  eight  days’  journey  from 
Babylon.  Lumps  of  bitumen  are  found  in  great  abundance  in 
this  river. 

“The  city  is  divided  into  two  portions  by  the  river  which  runs 
through  the  midst  of  it.  This  river  is  the  Euphrates,  a  broad, 
deep,  swift  stream,  which  rises  in  Armenia  and  empties  itself  into 
the  Erythraean  Sea.  The  city  wall  is  brought  down  on  both  sides 
to  the  edge  of  the  stream;  thence,  from  the  corners  of  the  wall, 
there  is  carried  along  each  bank  of  the  river  a  fence  of  burnt  bricks. 
The  houses  are  mostly  three  and  four  stories  high;  the  streets 
all  run  in  straight  lines,  not  only  those  parallel  to  the  river,  but 
also  the  cross  streets,  which  lead  down  to  the  water  side.  At 
the  river  end  of  these  cross  streets  are  low  gates  in  the  fence  that 
skirts  the  stream,  which  are  like  the  great  gates  in  the  outer  wall, 
of  brass,  and  open  on  the  water. 

1  The  proportion  of  width  to  height  is  impossible.  The  interior  of 
these  walls  was  composed  of  sun-dried  bricks,  the  outside  was  made 
of  burnt  bricks.  Such  a  wall  could  not  be  raised  to  so  great  a  height 
(about  one  hundred  and  five  meters)  on  a  base  so  narrow  (about  twenty- 
six  meters) ;  long  before  it  could  be  reached  the  whole  mass  would  collapse. 
The  necessary  proportions  would  be  about  a  width  of  one  third  to  two 
thirds  of  the  height.  See  A.  Billerbeck,  Der  Festungsbau  im  Alteji 
Orient,  Leipzig,  1900,  p.  6. 

2  The  modern  Hit.  See  above,  vol.  i,  p.  427. 


APPENDIX 


589 


“The  outer  wall  is  the  main  defense  of  the  city.  There  is,  how¬ 
ever,  a  second  inner1  wall,  of  less  thickness  than  the  first,  but  very 
little  inferior  to  it  in  strength.  The  center  of  each  division  of 
the  town  was  occupied  by  a  fortress.  In  the  one  stood  the  palace 
of  the  kings,  surrounded  by  a  wall  of  great  strength  and  size;  in 
the  other  was  the  sacred  precinct  of  Jupiter  Belus,  a  square  in¬ 
closure  two  furlongs  each  way,  with  gates  of  solid  brass;  which 
was  also  remaining  in  my  time.  In  the  middle  of  the  precinct 
there  was  a  tower  of  solid  masonry,  a  furlong  in  length  and  breadth, 
upon  which  was  raised  a  second  tower,  and  on  that  a  third,  and 
so  on  up  to  eight.  The  ascent  to  the  top  is  on  the  outside,  by  a 
path  which  winds  round  all  the  towers.  When  one  is  about  half¬ 
way  up  one  finds  a  resting  place  and  seats,  where  persons  are  wont 
to  sit  some  time  on  their  way  to  the  summit.  On  the  topmost 
tower  there  is  a  spacious  temple,  and  inside  the  temple  stands 
a  couch  of  unusual  size,  richly  adorned,  with  a  golden  table  by  its 
side.  There  is  no  statue  of  any  kind  set  up  in  the  place,  nor  is 
the  chamber  occupied  of  nights  by  anyone  but  a  single  native 
woman,  who,  as  the  Chaldeans,  the  priests  of  this  god,  affirm,  is 
chosen  for  himself  by  the  deity  out  of  all  the  women  of  the  land.”2 


In  addition  to  this  description  of  the  city’s 
defenses  Herodotus  has  also  given  an  account 
of  the  supposed  works  of  Semiramis  and 
Nitocris,3  but  this  is  much  less  valuable  than 
the  passage  quoted  above. 

It  is  evident  that  Herodotus  knew  only  of 
two  walls,  one  of  which  had  already  disap¬ 
peared  in  his  day,  and  that  he  had  no  knowledge 
of  the  outer  defense  wall  beyond  Nimitti-Bel, 
which  was  begun  by  Nabopoiassar  and  finished 
by  Nebuchadrezzar.  We  should  therefore  have 
a  false  impression  of  the  outer  defense  of  the 

iThis  is  the  wall  called  Imgur-Bel  by  Nebuchadrezzar.  See  below 
and  compare  above,  p.  534. 

2 1,  178-181  ( History  of  Herodotus,  by  George  Rawlinson,  London, 
1880,  vol.  i,  pp.  297-302). 

2  I,  184-187. 


590  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


city  were  we  wholly  dependent  on  his  witness. 
He  has  indeed  obviously  mingled  what  he  saw 
by  his  own  eyes  with  what  he  was  told  by  his 
cicerone,  and  it  is  no  longer  possible  to  differ¬ 
entiate  them  clearly.1 

The  badly  preserved  fragments  of  Berossos2 
show  that  he  had  originally  written  of  a  three¬ 
fold  defense  wall  of  the  city,  and  this  is  con¬ 
firmed  fully  by  the  passages  from  the  text  of 
Nebuchadrezzar  which  follows.  This  is  trans¬ 
lated  with  as  close  adhesion  to  the  original 
as  possible,  in  order  to  facilitate  reference  to 
the  Babylonian  text  or  to  the  transliterations 
of  it,  to  which  reference  is  given  in  the  notes. 

East  India  House  Inscription  of  Nebuchadrezzar.3 

Col.  IV.  66  Imgur-Bel 

and  Nimitti-Bel 

the  great  ramparts  of  Babjdon 

which  Nabopolassar, 

70  king  of  Babylon,  the  father  who  begot  me, 
had  made,  but  not  finished 
their  erection; 

Col.  V.  1  their  moat  had  he  dug,  and 
two  strong  embankments 
with  bitumen  and  burnt  brick 
he  constructed  as  its  border; 


1  Compare  Baumstark,  sub  voce  Babylon  in  Pauly-Wissowa,  Realen- 
cyclopadie  der  classischen  Wissenschaft,  ii. 

2  See  the  assembled  fragments  in  Muller,  Frag.  Hist.  Grcec.,  ii,  pp. 
495,  ff. 

3  For  references  to  text  and  translations  see  above,  p.  532,  note  1. 
The  translation  here  given  owes  much  to  Ball’s  excellent  English  ver¬ 
sion,  but  differs  from  it  in  adhering  a  little  more  closely  to  the  original 
in  some  places.  The  translation  has  also  derived  some  corrections 
from  Langdon,  Neubabylonische  Konigsinschriften. 


5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

35 

40 


APPENDIX 


591 


the  embankments  of  the  Arakhtu 
he  had  made,  and 
walls  of  brick 

along  the  bank  of  the  Euphrates 
had  constructed,  and 

had  not  finished 
the  rest; 
from  Du-azag, 

the  place  of  those  that  decide  destinies, 
the  shrine  of  the  Fates, 

unto  Ai-ibur-shabu, 
the  street  of  Babylon, 
before  the  gate  of  Beltis, 
with  Breccia-stones, 

for  the  procession  of  the  great  lord  Marduk 

he  beautified  the  road. 

As  for  me,  his  firstborn  son, 
the  darling  of  his  heart, 

Imgur-Bel 
and  Nimitti-Bel, 

the  great  ramparts  of  Babylon, 

I  finished; 

the  sides  of  the  embankment  of  its  moat, 

the  two  strong  embankments, 

with  bitumen  and  burnt  brick  I  built,  and 

with  the  embankment,  (which)  my  father  had  con¬ 
structed, 

I  joined  (them),  and 
the  city,  for  defense, 

1  carried  (them)  round. 

A  wall  of  brick, 

on  the  western  side 
the  fortress  of  Babylon 
I  threw  around. 

Ai-ibur-shabu 

the  street  of  Babylon 

for  the  procession  of  the  great  lord  Marduk 

with  a  high  top-covering 

I  filled,  and 

with  Breccia-stones 

and  stone  from  the  mountains, 


592  HISTORY  OF  BABYLONIA  AND  ASSYRIA 


45  Ai-ibur-shabu 

From  the  gleaming  gate 
to  Ishtar-sakipat-tebisha 
for  the  procession  of  his  godhead 
50  I  made  fair,  and 

with  what  my  father  had  built 
I  joined  (it),  and 
I  beautified 
the  road 

55  Ishtar-sakipat-tebisha 
Of  Imgur-Bel 
and  Nimitti-Bel 
the  portals 

60  through  the  top-covering 
of  the  street  of  Babylon 
too  low  had  become 
their  entrances. 

These  portals 
I  tore  down,  and 

Col.  VI.  1  at  water  level  their  foundation 
with  bitumen  and  brick 
I  firmly  laid,  and 

with  blue  enameled  bricks  adorned. 

5  which  bulls  and  huge  serpents 
tastefully  I  constructed. 

Strong  cedar  beams 
for  their  roofing 
10  I  laid  over  them. 

Doors  of  cedar 
(with)  plating  of  bronze; 
lintels  and  hinges  (?), 
of  bronze,  round  its  gates 
15  I  set  up. 

Strong  bulls  of  bronze, 
and  great  serpents, 
by  their  thresholds  I  set  up: 
those  portals 

20  for  the  astonishment  of  multitudes  of  people 
with  beauty  I  adorned. 

In  order  that  the  battle-storm  to  Imgur-Bel 
the  wall  of  Babylon,  might  not  reach; 
what  no  king  before  me  had  done; 


APPENDIX 


593 


25  for  four  thousand  cubits  of  ground 
on  the  sides  of  Babylon 

far  away,  so  that  they  should  not  come  near, 
a  mighty  rampart  on  the  east, 

Babylon  I  threw  around. 

30  Its  moat  I  dug,  and  the  bank  of  it 
with  bitumen  and  brick 
I  bound  together,  and 
a  mighty  rampart  on  its  bank 
mountain  high  I  built. 

35  Its  broad  portals 
I  constructed,  and 

the  doors  of  cedar,  with  plating  of  copper, 

I  set  up. 

That  foes  without  discovery 
40  the  sides  of  Babylon  might  not  approach; 
great  waters, 
like  the  volume  of  seas, 

I  conducted  round  the  land,  and 
the  crossing  of  them 

45  (was)  like  the  crossing  of  the  great  sea, 
of  salt  water. 

A  breaking  forth  of  them 
in  order  not  to  permit, 
with  a  bank  of  earth 
50  I  embanked  them,  and 
walls  of  burnt  brick 
I  placed  around  them. 

The  defenses  skillfully 
did  I  strengthen,  and 
55  the  city  of  Babylon 
I  made  fit  for  defense. 


GENERAL  INDEX 


A 

Abbaa,  Shah,  i,  12. 

Abd-milkot,  ii,  400. 

Abeshu,  ii,  95. 

Abi-rattash,  ii,  103. 

Abiyate,  ii,  460. 

Abu  Habba  (Sippar),  i,  291. 

Abu  Hatab  (Kisura),  i,  319,  435. 

Abu  Sharein,  i,  205. 

Abydeuus,  ii,  494. 

Acacia,  i,  421. 

Academy  of  Inscriptions,  Paris,  i,  127. 
Accad,  ii,  4. 

Accad,  dynasty  of,  ii,  25-39. 
Achsemenides,  the,  i,  62. 

Adab  (Bismya),  i,  311. 

Adad  (Hadad),  storm  god,  ii,  74. 
Adad-apal-iddin,  ii,  131. 

Adad-nirari  I,  ii,  122,  148. 

Adad-nirari  III  makes  synchronistic 
history,  ii,  115,  190. 

Adad-nirari  IV,  western  campaigns,  ii, 
255;  conquests  of  Edom  and  Philis- 
tia,  ii,  256;  invasions  of  Baby¬ 
lonia,  ii,  256;  compilation  of 
synchronistic  history,  ii,  257 ;  in¬ 
termixture  of  religions,  ib. ;  position 
of  the  king’s  mother,  ii,  258. 
Adad-shum-usur,  ii,  124,  156,  160. 
Adapa,  myth  of,  i,  378. 

Adarmalik,  ii,  387. 

Adhem,  i,  409. 

Adiya,  ii,  459. 

Ae-aplu-usur,  ii,  182. 

Agum  I,  ii,  103. 

Agum.II,  ii,  104. 

Ahab  ii,  227,  233. 

Ahasuerus,  i,  14,  25. 

Ahaz,  ii,  288. 

Aibur-shabu,  street,  i,  316;  ii,  536. 
Akerkuf  (Dur-Kurigalzu),  i,  439. 
Akh-en-Aten,  i,  333. 

Akhsheri,  ii,  440. 

Akurgal,  ii,  11. 

Alabaster,  i,  427. 

Alarodian,  see  Vannic. 

Alexander  of  Miletus,  i,  389. 

Alexander  the  Great,  i,  84,  315. 
Alluvium,  i,  425. 

Almond,  i,  421. 

Alvan,  ii,  104,  108. 

Amar,  sun  god,  ii,  74. 

Amardian,  name  proposed  for  Susian, 
i,  221. 

Amasis,  ii,  529,  565. 

Amenophis  IV,  i,  333;  ii,  145. 

American  Oriental  Society,  i,  300. 
Amil-Marduk  (Evil  Merodach)  releases 
Jehoiachin,  ii,  545;  his  reign  judged 
unlawful,  546;  assassinated,  546. 


Ammiditana,  ii,  96. 

Ammisaduga,  ii,  97. 

Ammuladi,  ii,  459. 

Amraphel,  ii,  83. 

Anbar,  i,  301  and  note. 

Andrse,  Walter,  architect,  on  Bab. 
exped.,  i,  314;  begins  excavation 
at  Kalah  Shergat,  i,  320;  discovery 
of  Tiglathpileser  prism,  i,  322; 
discovery  of  Assyrian  stelae,  i, 
325;  recovers  Tukulti-Ninib  text, 
i,  327;  discovery  of  royal  tombs,  i, 
327. 

Anquetil-Duperron,  i,  55,  57,  58. 

Antiochia  Mygdoniae,  i,  445. 

Antiochus  Soter,  cylinder,  i,  288. 

Anu  and  Adad,  double  temple,  ii,  163. 

Anville  d’,  i,  127. 

Apil-Sin,  ii,  79. 

Apple,  i,  421. 

Apricot,  i,  421. 

Apries,  ii,  508. 

Arad-Sin  (Eri-Aku),  ii,  68. 

Aram,  i,  405. 

Aramaean  origins  and  settlements,  ii, 
185,  186. 

Aram-Naharaim,  i,  404  and  note. 

Araxes,  i,  18. 

Arballu,  i,  444. 

Archaeological  Institute  of  America,  i, 
301. 

Ardys,  ii,  461. 

Argistis  II,  ii,  331. 

Arik-den-ilu,  ii,  147. 

Arioch,  ii,  84. 

Arsaces,  i,  53,  54,  104. 

Arses,  i,  105. 

Artash-shumara,  ii,  145. 

Artaxerxes  I,  i,  4,  7,  14. 

Artaxerxes  III,  i,  4,  6. 

Artaxerxes  Mnemon,  i,  391. 

Asclepiadae,  i,  391. 

Ashir-nirari  I,  ii,  140. 

Ashnunnak,  ii,  104. 

Ashraff,  i,  24. 

Ashuk,  i,  407. 

Ashurbanipal,  sources,  ii,  427;  expedi¬ 
tion  to  Kirbit,  429;  Egyptian  in¬ 
vasion,  431;  atrocities,  432;  the 
shaking  of  his  power  in  Egypt, 
434;  and  its  renewal,  435;  loss  of 
Egypt,  436;  fall  of  Tyre,  437; 
helping  Gyges  by  prayer,  438; 
and  the  converse,  439;  war  with 
Elam,  440;  difficulties  with  Sha- 
mash-shum-ukin,  444;  war  with 
him,  447 ;  and  his  defeat  and 
death,  450;  assumes  rule  as  Kan- 
dalanu,  451;  punishment  of  the 
Chaldeans,  451;  Elam,  452;  fre- 


595 


596 


GENERAL  INDEX 


quency  of  dreams  and  visions,  454; 
pillage  of  Susa,  455;  punishment  of 
Arabians,  458;  dangers  of  the 
Cimmerians,  461;  works  of  peace, 
462;  the  great  library,  463;  sculp¬ 
ture,  464;  festival  for  victories,  465; 
estimate  of  his  reign,  465. 

Ashur-bel-kala,  ii,  131,  176,  178. 

Ashur-bel-nisheshu,  ii,  116,  142. 

Ashurdan,  date  of,  i,  505. 

Ashur-dan,  ii,  125,  161. 

Ashur-dan  II,  ii,  190. 

Ashur-dan  III,  ii,  260;  eclipse  of  sun, 
ii,  261. 

Ashur-etil-ili-ukinni,  ii,  485. 

Ashur-nadin-akhi,  ii,  143. 

Ashur-nadin-shum,  ii,  375. 

Ashur-narara,  ii,  160. 

Ashurnazirpal  II,  ii,  189. 

Ashurnazirpal  III,  sources,  ii,  194; 
campaigns  Numme,  ii,  195;  Kir- 
ruri,  Qurkhi,  ii,  196;  Kummulch,  ii, 
197;  Bit  Khalupe,  ii,  198;  barbari¬ 
ties,  ii,  199;  stela  at  Supnat,  ii,  200; 
restoration  of  Tuskha,  ii,  200; 
tribute  collecting,  ii,  201-203; 
Kummukh,  ii,  204;  capital  at 
Calah,  ii,  205;  Babylonian  con¬ 
quests,  ii,  206;  Aramaeans,  ii,  208, 
210;  the  army,  ii,  211,  212; 

western  campaign,  ii,  212;  in  the 
Lebanon,  ii,  215;  western  con¬ 
quests,  ii,  216;  barbarities,  ii,  218; 
works  of  peace,  ii,  219;  end  of 
reign,  ii,  221. 

Ashur-nirari  V,  ii,  262. 

Ashur-rabi  III,  ii,  189. 

Ashur-rish-ishi,  ii,  129,  161;  campaigns 
against  Lulumi,  and  Babylon,  ii, 
162;  temple  to  Anu  and  Adad,  ii, 
163. 

Ashur-uballit  II,  ii,  144. 

Asnapper,  see  Ashurbanipal. 

Ass,  i,  423. 

Ass,  wild,  i,  424. 

Asshur,  palaces  in,  i,  321 ;  situation  of, 
ii,  134. 

Asshur  (Kalah-Shergat),  i,  439. 

Assyria,  original  boundaries,  i,  403; 
early  history  of,  ii,  110;  begin¬ 
nings  in,  ii,  133. 

Assyrium  Stagnum,  i,  416. 

Assyro-Babylonian  language,,  i,  366; 
one  of  the  Semitic  family,  i,  367; 
its  characteristics,  i,  370. 

Aston,  i,  97,  98. 

Astyages,  ii,  564. 

Attumetu,  ii,  452. 

Avestan,  i,  56,  67,  76. 

Azariah  of  Judah,  ii,  280n. 

Azariah  of  Yaudi,  ii,  280. 

B 

Babil,  i,  435. 

Babylon,  i,  435. 

Babylon,  defenses  of  the  city,  ii,  587. 

Babyloniaca  of,  Berossos,  i,  389  and 
note. 

Bachmann,  W.,  excavates  at  Tulul- 
Aker,  i,  328. 


Bagdet  (Baghdad),  i,  113. 

Baghdad,  i,  108,  151. 

Bahr-i-Nedjif,  i,  416. 

Balasu,  ii,  297. 

Balawat  gates,  i,  285  and  note. 

Balbi,  Gaspara,  i,  122. 

Bandamir,  i,  18. 

Banks,  E.  J.,  early  training,  i,  308; 
excavations  at  Bismya,  i,  310;  dis¬ 
covery  of  statue,  i,  310,  311. 
Barbaro,  Josophat,  i,  11. 

Barbel,  i,  422. 

Barley,  i,  419. 

Bayer,  Th.  S.,  i,  102. 

Bazi,  dynasty  of  house  of,  ii,  181. 
Beauchamp,  i,  132,  136. 

Beaver,  i,  424. 

Bedry  Bey,  i,  351. 

Beer,  i,  77,  104. 

Behistun,  i,  83. 

Bel-bani,  ii,  141. 

Belck,  Dr.,  i,  272;  ii,  323. 

Belesys,  ii,  297. 

Bel-ibni,  ii,  359,  373. 

Bel-iqisha,  ii,  398. 

Belkapkapu,  ii,  141. 

Bel-kudur-usur,  ii,  160. 

Bellino,  i,  152. 

Bel-shar-usur,  ii,  554,  570. 

Belshazzar  (Bel-shar-usur),  ii,  554. 
Bel-shum-ishkum,  ii,  547. 

Ben-Hadad  II,  ii,  232. 

Benjamin  of  Tuleda,  visits  Babylonia, 
i,  108-111,  119. 

Berossos,  i,  388,  507. 

Bezold,  C.,  i,  259;  important  discov¬ 
ery,  i,  262. 

Biblical  Archaeology,  Society  of,  i,  245. 
Biblical  Literature,  Society  of,  i,  300. 
Birch,  S.,  i,  245. 

Biru,  the  double  hour,  i,  461. 

Bisitun,  see  Bisutun. 

Bismya  (Adab),  i,  311. 

Bisutun,  i,  83. 

Bitumen,  i,  427,  428. 

Blackbird,  i,  423. 

Booth,  i,  84. 

Borsippa,  i,  436. 

Boscawen,  W.  St.  Chad,  on  British 
Museum  staff,  i,  284. 

Botta,  Paul  Emil,  consul  at  Alexan¬ 
dria  and  at  Mosul,  i,  159,  160; 
digs  at  Kuyunjik,  i,  163:  makes 
trials  at  Khorsabad,  i,  165;  hin¬ 
dered  by  Pasha,  i,  167;  new  firman 
secured,  i,  168;  sends  results  to 
Paris,  i,  169;  publication,  i,  170; 
collections  at  Paris,  i,  227 :  publishes 
memoir,  i,  229. 

Boundary  Stone  of  Ellil-nadin-apli,  i, 
490. 

Breasted,  ii,  328. 

Brick  making,  i,  426. 

Bronze  gates  of  Shalmaneser,  i,  285. 
Brown,  Francis,  i,  300. 

Bruin,  Cornelis  de,  i,  40. 

Buckingham,  James  Silk,  visits  Rich 
at  Baghdad,  i,  148;  visits  Baby¬ 
lon,  i,  152. 

Budge,  E.  A.  W.,  i;  explorations  in 


GENERAL  INDEX 


597 


Babylonia,  i,  335;  and  in  Assyria, 
i,  336;  excavations  at  Kuyunjik,  i, 
336;  Neby  Yunus,  i,  337;  ex¬ 
periences  in  the  East,  i,  338. 
Bunutakhtun-ila,  ii,  78. 

Burnaburiash  I,  ii,  114,  142. 
Burnaburiash  II,  ii,  118. 

Burnouf,  Eugene,  i,  57,  58,  75,  104. 
Bur-Sin  I,  ii,  59. 

Bur-Sin  II,  ii,  65. 

Bussalossoros,  see  Nabopolassar. 
Bustard,  i,  423. 

Buwariye  (Buwerie),  i,  331,  432. 

C 

Calah  (Nimroud),  i,  440. 

Cailisthenes,  i,  512. 

Canary,  i,  98. 

Canning,  Sir  Stratford,  i,  177. 

Canon  of  Ptolemy,  i,  513. 

Cantemir,  Dimitri,  i,  103. 

Cappadocia,  ii,  100. 

Carp,  i,  422. 

Carrhse,  i,  446. 

Cartwright,  John,  visits  Nineveh,  i, 
120;  and  Babylon,  i,  120-122. 
Casbin,  i,  24. 

Cat,  wild,  i,  424. 

Chabur,  i,  405. 

Chaldea,  i,  403. 

Chaldean,  old,  i,  250. 

Chaldean  people,  ii,  486. 

Chaldian  inscriptions,  i,  272;  see  also 
V  annic. 

Chandernagore,  i,  56.  _ 

Chardin,  Sir  John,  i,  31;  copies  in¬ 
scription,  i,  32. 

Chebar,  ii,  507. 

Chedorlaomer,  ii,  67,  84. 

Chelminira,  i,  13,  24. 

Chesney,  fertility  of  Babylonia,  i,  420. 
Chicago,  University  of,  i,  309. 
Chilmanor,  see  Chelminira. 

Chilminar,  i,  96. 

Chronicles,  Babylonian,  i,  483;  of  Sar- 
gon  and  Naram  Sin,  i,  483;  Early 
Bab.  rulers,  i,  484;  Bab.  dynasties, 
i,  484;  Eleventh  to  Seventh  Cen¬ 
tury,  i,  486;  Religious  Chronicle,  i, 
488;  Chronicle  B,  i,  489;  Naboni- 
dus  Chronicle,  i,  490;  Chronicle  P, 
i,  490. 

Chronological  Materials,  Babylonian,  i, 
470. 

Chronological  Tables,  i,  516. 
Chronology,  i,  460. 

Chsharsha  (Xerxes),  i,  71. 

Cilminar,  i,  10. 

Clay  tablets,  i,  426. 

Climate  of  Assyria  and  Babylonia,  i, 
416. 

Cnidus,  i,  391. 

Conglomerate,  i,  427. 

Cooper,  W.  R.,  i,  245. 

Cornelius,  i,  390. 

Cotton,  Sir  Dodmore,  i,  24. 

Cowell,  Professor,  i,  45. 

Cranes,  i,  422. 

Croesus,  king  of  Lydia,  ii,  562. 


Cros,  Gaston,  Babylonian  explorer,  i, 
298;  citadel  of  Gudea,  i,  300. 

Cuneiform,  character,  i,  354;  early 
forms,  i,  355. 

Cuneiform,  first  used  by  Hyde,  i,  100. 

Cuneiform  signs,  first  copy  of,  i,  22. 

Cureton,  W.t  i,  243. 

Curzon,  G.  N.,  i,  7. 

Cut-ha,  site  discovered,  i,  290. 

Cypress,  i,  421. 

Cyrus,  born  in  Anshan,  ii,  563;  con¬ 
quers  Astyages,  564;  king  of  the 
Persians,  565;  attack  upon  Croesus, 
566. 

Cyrus,  cylinder,  i,  287. 


D 

Damik-ilishu,  ii,  65. 

Darayavahush,  i,  77. 

Darheush,  i,  67. 

Darius  I,  i,  4,  7,  66,  67,  69,  85. 

Darius  II,  i,  7. 

Daryavesh,  i,  67. 

Date  Lines,  i,  477;  Pre-Sargonic,  i,  477; 

Early  Dynasties,  i,  477. 

Date  Lists,  i,  475;  Sumerian,  i,  478. 
Dati-Ellil,  ii,  36. 

Dating  by  palaeography,  i,  501. 
Daulier-Deslandes,  i,  37. 

Day,  the,  beginning  of,  i,  460. 

Deecke,  W.,  i,  257. 

Deer,  i,  425. 

Delitzsch,  Friedrich,  opposes  Hal6vy,  i, 
256;  joins  him,  i,  260;  joins  the 
Sumeriologists,  i,  262;  as  a  teacher, 
i,  318;  .visits  Babylonia  and  As¬ 
syria,  318;  his  pupils,  318n. 

Deluge  tablet  read,  i,  280. 

Derbent,  i,  101,  102. 

Determinatives,  i,  359. 

Dinon  ot  Kolophon,  i,  399. 

Diodorus  Siculus,  i,  84. 

Diwaniyeh,  i,  410. 

Diyaleh,  i,  409. 

Ducks,  i,  422. 

Dudkhaliya,  ii,  84n. 

Dugdamme,  ii,  439,  461. 

Dungi,  ii,  50,  53. 

Dur-ilu,  ii,  129. 

Dur-Kurigalzu,  i,  439;  ii,  119. 
Dur-Sharrulcin  (Khorsabad),  i,  444. 
Dushratta,  ii,  143. 

E 

Ea-mukin-zer,  ii,  181. 

E-Anna,  i,  431. 

Eannatum,  ii,  11. 

East  India  Company,  i,  137. 

Ebishum,  ii,  95. 

Ecbatana,  i,  84. 

Eclipse  of  sun,  in  chronology,  ii,  261. 
Eel,  i,  422. 

Egyptian  chronological  material,  i,  514. 
Egyptian  historical  sources,  i,  387. 
Ekharsagkurlcura,  ii,  135. 

El-Amarna,  i,  333. 

Elamite  dynasty  in  Bab.,  ii,  182. 


598 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Eldred,  John,  visits  Babylonia,  i,  114- 
116;  confuses  Baghdad  and  Baby¬ 
lon,  i,  116. 

Elephant,  i,  424. 

Ellil-bani,  ii,  65. 

Ellil-kudur-usur,  ii,  125. 

Ellil-nadin-akhi,  ii,  126. 

Ellil-nadin-apli,  ii,  130. 

Ellil-nadinshum,  ii,  124. 

Ellil-nirari,  ii,  122,  146,  147. 

Elugo  (Feluja),  i,  112. 

E-mach,  temple,  i,  318. 

Em-shag-kush-ana,  ii,  22. 

Enannatum,  high  priest,  ii,  64. 

Enannatum  I,  ii,  13. 

Entemena,  votive  inscription  of,  i,  380; 
ii,  14. 

Eponym  Canon,  i,  502. 

Erech,  dynasty  of,  ii,  39. 

Erech  (Warka),  excavations  at,  i,  330; 
i,  431. 

Eri-Aku  (Arad-Sin),  ii,  68. 

Eridu,  i,  429. 

Erishum,  ii,  138. 

Esagila,  temple,  i,  316. 

Esar,  statue  of,  i,  310. 

Esarhaddon,  sources,  ii,  393;  pro¬ 
claimed  in  Babylon,  394;  crowned 
king,  395;  the  rebuilding  of  Baby¬ 
lon,  396;  Elamite  raid  in  Baby¬ 
lonia,  397 ;  Chaldean  difficulties, 
398;  first  western  campaign,  400; 
destruction  of  Sidon,  402;  attack 
upon  Tyre,  404;  its  failure,  405; 
first  attack  on  Egypt,  407;  Mem¬ 
phis  destroyed,  408;  reorganization 
of  Egypt,  409;  monuments  at  Dog 
River  and  Sinjirli,  410;  Melukhkha 
and  Aribi,  411;  Indo-European  in¬ 
vasions,  412;  successes  of  these, 
418;  the  Cimmerians,  418;  Rebel¬ 
lion,  420;  campaign  in  Egypt,  420; 
his  will,  421;  Shamash-shum-ukin 
proclaimed  king  of  Babylon,  422; 
Esarhaddon  dies,  423;  estimate  of 
his  reign,  423;  works  of  peace,  424. 

Ethobal,  ii,  400. 

Eulmash-shakin-shun,  ii,  181. 

Euphrates  river,  i,  407. 

Eusebius,  i,  388n;  i,  390. 

Evil-Merodach,  see  Amil-Marduk. 

Excursus  on  Flower’s  inscriptions,  i, 
95. 

Expedition  lists,  Assyrian,  i,  502. 


F 

Fara,  excavations  at,  i,  319,  434. 
Faucher,  M.  Leon,  i,  205. 

Felujah,  i,  409. 

Fertility  of  Babylonia,  i,  418. 
Festival  house,  New  Year’s,  i,  324. 
Field,  Perez  H.,  architect,  i,  302. 
Fig,  i,  421. 

Figueroa,  see  Sylva. 

First  dynasty  of  Babylon,  ii,  73. 
Fisher,  C.,  architect,  i,  307. 
Flandin,  Eugene  NapoRon,  i,  168. 
Flood  seasons,  i,  411. 


Flower,  S.,  i,  30;  Excursus  on  his  in¬ 
scriptions,  i,  95,  97,  98. 

Forty  Columns,  see  Cilminar. 

Fresnel,  M.  Fulgence,  i,  205. 

G 

Gaddash,  see  Gandish. 

Gandish  (Gande),  ii,  102. 

Gankhar,  ii,  56. 

Gatewray  of  Ishtar,  i,  317. 

Geere,  i,  307. 

Geese,  i,  422. 

Gemelli-Carreri,  i,  34;  copies  inscrip¬ 
tions,  36. 

George  the  Synkellos,  i,  391. 

Gimil-ilishu,  ii,  63. 

Gimil-Sin,  ii,  60,  76. 

Girsu,  i,  433. 

Gladstone,  W.  E.,  i,  245. 

Goat,  i,  423. 

Goljik,  Lake,  i,  407. 

Goshtasp,  i,  69. 

Gottingen,  academy  of  sciences,  i,  69, 
70. 

Gouvea,  Antonio  de,  i,  16. 

Greek  and  Latin  sources,  i,  38S. 

Gr61ot,  i,  31. 

Groats,  i,  422. 

Grote,  Mr.,  i,  243. 

Grotefend,  Georg  Friedrich,  birth  and 
education,  i,  61;  begins  decipher¬ 
ment  of  Persian,  i,  62f.;  first  at¬ 
tempt  at  translation,  i,  69;  correctly 
explains  Flower’s  copy,  i,  104;  at¬ 
tempts  to  decipher  Susian,  i,  216; 
examines  Vannic  texts,  i,  265. 

Griinwald,  M.,  i,  257. 

Gudea,  statue  of,  i,  298;  citadel,  300; 
historical  writings  of,  381;  ori¬ 
gin,  ii,  43;  begins  temple  to  Nin- 
girsu,  conquers  Anshan,  ii,  46; 
statues,  ii,  47;  artistic  work,  ii,  47; 
culmination  of  Sumerian  civiliza¬ 
tion,  ii,  48. 

Guldenstadt,  i,  103. 

Gulls,  i,  422. 

Gungunu,  ii,  64,  65. 

Gurnard,  i,  422. 

Guyard,  Stanislas,  begins  Vannic  de¬ 
cipherment,  i,  269. 

H 

Hadad  (Adad),  storm  god,  ii,  75. 

Hager,  Joseph,  i,  137. 

Hakluyt,  i,  9. 

HaI5vy,  Joseph,  denies  Sumerian  as 
language,  i,  254. 

Hall,  Isaac  IT.,  i,  300. 

Hamadan,  i,  81,  83. 

Hamdy  Bey,  director  of  Museum,  i,  351. 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  i,  122. 

Llammam,  mound  of,  i,  200. 

Hammurapi,  writings  of  the  period,  i, 
381;  date  of,  i,  492,  ii,  80;  cam¬ 
paign  against  Erech  and  Isin,  ii, 
81;  against  Emutbal,  ii,  82;  con¬ 
quers  Rim-Sin,  ii,  83;  as  Amraphel, 
ii,  83;  administration,  ii,  86;  code 


GENERAL  INDEX 


599 


of  laws,  ii,  86;  canal  building,  ii, 
86;  granary,  ii,  89;  temples,  ii,  90. 

Handcock,  P.  S.,  ii,  246,  349. 

Hanno  of  Gaza,  ii,  285,  319. 

Hare,  i,  425. 

Harper,  Robert  F.,  on  Bab.  expedition, 
i,  302;  director  of  excavations,  i, 
309. 

Harper,  W.  R.,  i,  308. 

Harran,  i,  446. 

Hatshepsowet,  ii,  143. 

Haupt,  Paul,  writes  important  book  on 
Sumerian,  i,  258. 

Haynes,  J.  H.,  on  first  Bab.  expedition, 
i,  302;  director  of  third  expedi¬ 
tion,  i,  305;  fourth,  i,  307. 

Hebrew  origins,  ii,  188. 

Heeren,  A.  H.  L.,  i,  70. 

Henderson,  consul  at  Aleppo,  i,  340. 

Heracleides  of  Cumse,  i,  400. 

Herbert,  Thomas,  i,  24,  26. 

Herodotus,  i,  95;  fertility  of  Babylonia, 
i,  418;  his  work,  i,  393-395;  travels, 
i,  396;  value  as  a  source,  i,  398; 
description  of  destruction  of  Sen¬ 
nacherib’s  army,  ii,  586. 

Herons,  i,  422. 

Heuzey,  Leon,  curator  in  Louvre,  i,  298. 

Hezekiah,  ii,  361. 

Hillah,  i,  435. 

Hilprecht,  H.  V.,  first  expedition  to 
Babylonia,  i,  302;  sent  to  Constan¬ 
tinople,  i,  304;  director  of  fourth 
Pennsylvania  expedition,  i,  307. 

Hincks,  Edward,  birth  at  Cork,  i,  92; 
paper  on  Darius,  i,  91;  educated  at 
Trinity  College,  Dublin,  i,  92;  first 
memoir  on  Persepolis,  i,  93;  reads 
name  of  Jehu,  i,  191;  working  at 
Susian,  i,  217;  deciphering  Assyrian 
names,  i,  225;  identifying  names,  i, 
228;  study  of  ideograms,  i,  232; 
lays  foundations  of  Assyrian  gram¬ 
mar,  i,  238;  power  as  a  translator, 
i,  240n;  test  of  decipherment,  i, 
242;  on  Accadian,  i,  249;  Vannic 
decipherment,  i,  266. 

Hindiyeh  canal,  i,  409. 

Historical  sources,  Babylonian,  i,  379; 
Assyrian,  i,  383;  their  value,  i,  386. 

Hit,  i,  404. 

Hittite  invasion,  ii,  97. 

Hog,  i,  423. 

Holtzmann,  fails  in  translating  Per¬ 
sepolis  text,  i,  105. 

Holwan  (Alvan),  ii,  106. 

Hommel,  F.,  i,  258. 

Honey,  i,  419. 

Hophra,  ii,  508,  ii,  514. 

Hoshea,  ii,  291;  ii,  314n. 

Flouses,  private  Assyrian,  i,  323. 

Hiising,  G.,  proposes  the  name  Susian, 
i,  221. 

Huz,  i,  9. 

Hyde,  Thomas,  studies  Flower’s  copies, 
i,  99;  uses  the  name  cuneiform,  i, 
100. 

Hyena,  i,  424. 

Ilyslop,  J.  M.,  i,  212. 

Hystaspes,  i,  66,  68. 


I 

Ibex,  i,  424. 

Ibi-Sin,  ii,  61. 

Ibni-sharru,  scribe,  ii,  38. 

Ibrahim  Tell  (Kutha),  i,  438. 
Ideograms,  and  their  development,  i, 
358. 

Idin-Dagan,  ii,  63. 

Ikunum,  ii,  138. 

Ilum-ma-ilu,  ii,  78. 

Ilushuma,  date  of,  i,  500;  ii,  137. 
Ilu-ubidi,  ii,  318. 

Immerum,  ii,  78. 

Indabigash,  ii,  450. 

Irishum,  date  of,  i,  506;  ii,  138. 

Irzah,  i,  409. 

Isaiah,  i,  106;  ii,  290,  362. 

Ishbi-Ura,  ii,  62. 

Ishme-Dagan,  patesi,  date  of,  i,  505. 
Ishpakai,  ii,  413. 

Ishtar,  gateway,  i,  317. 
Ishtar-sakipat-tebi-sha,  ii,  536. 

Isin,  i,  433;  dynasty  of,  ii,  62,  127. 
Iter-kasha,  ii,  65. 

Itti-Marduk-balatu,  ii,  131. 

J 

Jacquet,  Eugene,  i,  77,  78. 

Jeconiah,  ii,  506. 

Jehoiachin,  ii,  506. 

Jehoiakim,  ii,  505. 

Jehu,  ii,  233. 

Jensen,  P.,  opposes  HalAvy,  i,  259. 
Jeremiah,  ii,  511. 

Jokha  (Umma),  i,  434. 

Jones,  Felix,  i,  212.  _ 

Jones,  Sir  Harford,  i,  48. 

Jordan,  J.,  i,  325n;  at  Warka,  i,  333. 
Josephus,  i,  390. 

Josiah,  ii,  498. 

Jotham,  ii,  288. 

Julameih,  i,  103. 

K 

Kadashman-Ellil,  ii,  116,  122. 
Kadashman-Kharbe  I,  ii,  114. 
Kadashman-Kharbe  II,  ii,  120,  124,  144. 
Kadashman-Turgu,  ii,  122. 

Kaempfer,  Engelrecht,  i,  38. 

Kalah  Shergat,  i,  192,  439. 

Kalam,  ii,  4. 

Kaldi  country  (Chaldea),  i,  403. 

Kaldu  (Chaldeans),  i,  457. 

Kanag,  ii,  4. 

Kandalanu,  ii,  451,  483n. 

Karaindash  I,  ii,  114. 

Karaindash  II,  ii,  120,  144. 

Karaje  Dagh,  i,  404. 

Kardunyash,  ii,  113. 

Kar-Tukulti-Ninib,  ii,  156. 

Kasdim  (Chaldeans),  i,  457. 

Kashtiliash  I,  ii,  103. 

Kashtiliash  II,  ii,  124. 

Kasr,  El,  excavations  on  mound,  i,  314. 
Kasshu-nadin-akhe,  ii,  181. 

Kassite  invasion,  ii,  93. 

Kassites,  language  of,  ii,  101;  racial 
v  affinity  uncertain,  ii,  101;  dynasty 
of,  ii,  99. 


600 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Keban  Madan,  i,  407. 

Kermanshah,  i,  83. 

Khabur  (Chabur),  i,  408. 

Khallus,  ii,  377. 

Khalule,  battle  of,  ii,  380. 

Khani,  ii,  106. 

Khanigalbat,  ii,  111. 

Kharpoot,  i,  409. 

Khidi,  ii,  376. 

Khitr,  El,  i,  410. 

Khorsabad  (Dur-Sharrukin),  i,  444. 
Khorsabad,  first  excavations  at,  i,  165; 
later  by  Layard,  i,  198;  by  Victor 
Place,  i,  199. 

Khula,  ii,  199. 

Khulle,  ii,  333. 

Khumbanigash,  ii,  317,  442,  449. 
Khumban-Khaldash,  ii,  440. 
Khumban-Khaldash  II,  ii,  397,  398. 
Khurbatila,  ii,  122. 

Ki-en-gi,  ii,  4. 

Kikia,  ii,  136. 

King,  Leonard  W.,  explorations  in  the 
East,  i,  340;  visits  Balawat,  i,  342; 
guest  of  Koldewey,  i,  342;  makes 
expedition  to  Kuyunjik,  i,  343;  ter¬ 
race  of  Sennacherib,  i,  345;  visits 
Van  and  Bavian,  i,  347;  assisted  by 
Thompson,  i,  348;  copies  Behistun 
texts,  i,  349;  at  Sebeneh-Su,  i,  350. 
King  List  A,  i,  470. 

King  List  B,  i,  471. 

King  List,  Sumerian  I,  i,  472. 

Sumerian  II,  i,  473. 

Sumerian  III,  i,  474. 

Kircher,  Athanasius,  i,  123. 

Kirua,  ii,  375. 

Kish  (El  Ohemir),  i,  435. 

Kissians,  ii,  100. 

Kisura  (Abu  Hatab),  i,  320,  435. 

Ki-uri  (Ki-urra),  ii,  4. 

Koldewey,  identifies  ruins  of  Babil,  i, 
286;  director  of  expedition,  i,  313; 
excavates  at  Kalah  Shergat,  i,  320; 
at  Merkes,  i,  329. 

Kossseans,  ii,  100. 

Ktesias,  i,  391. 

Kudur-Ellil,  ii,  123. 

Kudur-lagamar,  ii,  84. 

Kudur-Mabuk,  ii,  68. 

Kudur-nankhundi,  date  of,  i,  498;  sacks 
Erech,  ii,  67 ;  ii,  378. 

Kudurru  of  Michaux,  i,  136. 
Kuh-i-Rahmat,  i,  3. 

Kur,  ii,  4. 

Kurigalzu  I,  ii,  114. 

Kurigalzu  II,  ii,  118,  144,  146,  147. 
Kurigalzu  III,  ii,  121,  149. 

Kurnah,  i,  410. 

Kut  el  Amara,  i,  414. 

Kutha,  i,  438;  king  of,  i,  379. 
Kuyunjik,  i,  440;  description  of  mound, 
i,  161;  first  excavations,  i,  163. 
Kyaxares,  ii,  475. 

L 

Labaroeoarchodos,  ii,  549. 
Labashi-Marduk,  ii,  549. 

Labashi,  architect,  i,  315. 


Labassarachos,  ii,  549. 

Lagash  (Telloh),  i,  433. 

Lands  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  i,  401. 

Langdon,  S.,  writes  Sumerian  grammar, 
i,  263. 

Larsa  (Senkereh),  i,  430. 

Lasirab,  king  of  Gutium,  ii,  37. 

Lassen,  i,  76. 

Laws,  Hammurapi  code  of,  ii,  86. 

Layard,  Austen  Henry,  birth  and  train¬ 
ing,  i,  171;  travels,  i,  172;  sees 
mound  of  Nimroud,  i,  173;  visits 
Botta,  i,  176;  correspondence  with 
him,  i,  177;  borrows  for  excava¬ 
tions,  i,  178;  begins  digging  at 
Nimroud,  i,  179-186;  his  gifts  of 
description,  i,  187;  another  cam¬ 
paign,  i,  189;  excavates  at  Kalah 
Shergat,  i,  192;  service  with  British 
embassy,  i,  192;  sets  out  again  for 
work  at  Kuyunjik  and  Neby 
Yunus,  i,  193;  descriptions  of  this 
work,  i,  194-195;  discovery  of  royal 
library,  i b.;  description  of  Nimroud 
(Calah),  i,  196,  197;  effects  of  his 
work,  i,  198,  199;  discoveries  reach 
London,  i,  234;  discovers  Varmic 
text,  i,  265. 

Lehmann-Haupt,  C.,  summarizes  the 
Sumerian  problem,  i,  261;  con¬ 
tributions  to  Vannic,  i,  272. 

Lenormant,  writes  Sumerian  grammar, 
i,  252;  attempts  Vannic  decipher¬ 
ment,  i,  268. 

Lentulus,  i,  389. 

Leopard,  i,  424. 

Libit-Ishtar,  ii,  63. 

Limestone,  i,  427. 

Lindl,  E.,  i,  313. 

Linear  script,  i,  354. 

Lion,  i,  423. 

Literature,  appendix,  ii,  577. 

Loewenstein,  I.  de,  classifies  Assyrian  as 
Semitic,  i,  224. 

Loftus,  W.  K.,  geologist,  visits  Ham- 
mam,  i,  200;  excavates  at  Warka, 
i,  201;  general  work  in  the  south,  i, 
202;  at  Kuyunjik,  i,  212;  fertility 
of  Babylonia,  i,  420. 

Longperier,  H.  A.  de,  working  at  Assy¬ 
rian  i,  228. 

Lugal-kigub-nidudu,  ii,  50. 

Lugal-kisalsi,  statue  of,  ii,  47. 

Lugal-shag-engur,  ii,  9. 

Lugal-tarsi,  ii,  10. 

Lugal-ushumgal,  ii,  39. 

Lugal-zaggisi,  ii,  20. 

Lulubu,  ii,  56. 

Luschan,  ii,  405n.,  410n. 

Lynx,  i,  424. 

M 

Makloube,  i,  132,  133. 

Malatiyeh,  i,  407. 

Manasseh,  ii,  460. 

Mandelslo,  J.  Albert  de,  i,  25. 

Mandeville,  Sir  John,  i,  111. 

Manishtusu.  his  social  reforms,  ii,  31. 

Marble,  i,  428. 


GENERAL  INDEX 


601 


Marco  Polo,  i,  111. 

Marduk-apal-iddin,  ii,  125,  160. 

Marduk-balatsu-iqbi,  ii,  253. 

Marduk-nadin-akhe,  date  of,  i,  498;  ii, 
130. 

Marduk-shapik-zerim,  ii,  128. 

Marduk-shapik-zer-mati,  ii,  131. 

Marduk-zakir-shum,  ii,  356. 

Marduk-ushezib,  ii,  374. 

Mare  back,  flight  on,  ii,  275,  329n. 

Masius,  Mount,  i,  404. 

Medes,  ii,  475ff.;  rise  of  their  power,  ii, 

_  562. 

Meissner,  Bruno,  i,  313. 

Melishipak  I,  ii,  114. 

Meli-Shipak  II,  ii,  125. 

Menahem,  ii,  281;  289. 

Menahem  of  Samsimuruna,  ii,  366. 

Merkes,  i,  329. 

Merodach-baladan,  ii,  297,  316,  336ff., 
357,  373,  377. 

Mesilim,  ii,  9. 

Mesopotamia,  i,  404. 

Michaux,  i,  136. 

Milman,  Dean,  i,  242. 

Mitanni,  land  of,  ii,  111;  its  kings  and 
relations  with  Egypt,  ii,  111;  lan¬ 
guage  of,  ii,  112. 

Mit’atti,  ii,  323. 

Mitford,  Edward  Ledwich,  i,  172. 

Mohl,  Julius,  visits  London,  i,  158;  ad¬ 
vises  Botta,  i,  159;  aids  him,  i,  166, 
274. 

Month,  the  lunar,  i,  462;  the  Sumerian, 
i,  463;  the  Semitic,  i,  467. 

Monuments  as  sources,  i,  377;  their 
classes,  legendary,  historical,  chron¬ 
ological,  i,  378. 

Mordtmann,  A.  D.,  i,  220;  attempts 
Vannic  decipherment,  i,  268. 

Morier,  James  Justinian,  i,  45. 

Morton,  Henry,  i,  309. 

Muballitat-Sherua,  ii,  120,  144. 

Mugheir,  El,  i,  430. 

Miihlbach,  Captain  von,  i,  265. 

Mukallu,  ii,  438. 

Miinter,  Friedrich,  i,  52,  63. 

Murad  Su,  i,  407. 

Murena,  i,  422. 

Murgab,  i,  48,  50. 

Museo  Kircheriano,  i,  123n. 

Mushezib-Marduk,  ii,  373,  379. 

Musri,  land  of,  ii,  306n. 

Mutakkil-Nusku,  ii,  128,  161. 

N 

Nabonidus,  sources,  ii,  550;  builder  and 
archaeologist,  551;  neglect  of  the 
state,  554;  re-building  of  E-bab- 
bara,  556;  E-ulmash,  558;  E-khul- 
khul,  559;  rise  of  Median  power, 
562;  Nabonidus  makes  no  defense 
against  Cyrus,  569;  protects  the 
gods,  572;  fall  of  Babylon,  573. 

Nabopolassar,  ii,  474;  sources,  ii,  492; 
character  of  his  inscriptions,  495; 
canal  constructions,  496;  Egyptian 
moves  against  Assyria,  497 ;  in¬ 
creasing  his  territory,  500;  sent  his 


son  Nebuchadrezzar  to  fight  at 
Carchemish,  501 ;  death  of  Nabo¬ 
polassar,  501;  the  importance  of 
his  reign,  502. 

Nabu-apal-iddin,  ii,  193,  207. 

Nabu-balatsu-iqbi,  ii,  550. 

Nabu-bel-shume,  ii,  453,  456. 

Nabu-dan,  ii,  160. 

Nabu-mukin-apli,  ii,  184. 

Nabu-mukin-zer,  ii,  295. 

Nabu-nadin-zer,  ii,  295. 

Nabu-nasir  (Nabonassar),  ii,  268;  ii, 
271. 

Nabu-shezib-anni,  ii,  433. 

Nabu-shum-ishkun,  ii,  190,  268. 

Nabu-shum-libur,  ii,  131. 

Nabu-shum-ukin,  ii,  295. 

Nabu-usallim,  ii,  398. 

Nabu-ushabshi,  ii,  296. 

Nabu-zir-napishti-lishir,  ii,  396. 

Nacibina,  i,  445. 

Naharina,  ii,  111,  see  Mitanni. 

Nahum,  i,  106;  ii,  476. 

Na’id  Marduk,  ii,  397. 

Naksh-i-Rustam,  i,  7,  33,  48,  75,  79,  96. 

Namar,  ii,  129. 

Napkhuriya,  ii,  145. 

Naram  Sin,  date  of,  i,  494;  campaign 
against  Rish-Adad,  ii,  32;  against 
Magan,  ii,  33;  builds  temples,  ii, 
34;  deified,  ii,  36. 

Nazibugash,  ii,  121. 

Nazi-Maruttash,  ii,  122,  149. 

Nebuchadrezzar  I,  ii,  128. 

Nebuchadrezzar  II,  threshold  of,  i,  287 ; 
character  of  his  inscriptions,  ii,  505 ; 
the  difficulties  with  the  Jews,  505; 
first  deportation  of  Jew’s,  507;  re¬ 
bellion  in  Judah,  510;  Nebuchad¬ 
rezzar  sends  army,  512;  siege  of 
Jerusalem,  513;  victory  over  Egyp¬ 
tians,  516;  siege  resumed,  517; 
Jerusalem  taken,  518;  Zedekiah 
punished,  519;  Jerusalem  sacked, 
520;  attack  upon  Tyre,  525;  attack 
upon  Egypt,  528;  estimate  of  his 
campaigns,  531;  sources  for  this 
reign,  532;  building  operations,  533; 
canal  building,  538;  estimate  of  his 
personality,  543. 

Neby  Yunus,  first  examination,  i,  144; 
Botta  at,  161,  440. 

Necho  II,  ii,  436,  497. 

Nergal-shar-usur,  king  of  Babylon  and 
son-in-law  of  Nebuchadrezzar,  ii, 
547;  building  operations,  548; 
death,  549. 

Nergal-sharezer,  ii,  387. 

Nergal-ushezib,  ii,  378. 

Neriglissor,  see  Nergal-shar-usur. 

Niebuhr,  Carsten,  i,  43,  62,  63,  7S,  85, 
130,  131. 

Niffer,  proposed  as  site  for  excavation, 
i,  302,  434. 

Nimroud  (Calah),  i,  440. 

Nineveh,  survey  of,  i,  212,  440. 

Ninib-apal-esharra,  ii,  125,  160,  161. 

Ninib-kudur-usur,  ii,  182. 

Nippur,  i,  434. 

Nisibin,  i,  445. 


602 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Nocturestand,  see  Naksh-i-Rustam. 
Norris,  Edwin,  deciphers  Susian  text,  i, 
219. 

O 

Odoricus,  i,  9. 

Ohemir,  El  (Kish),  i,  435. 

Olivier,  Guillaume  A.,  i,  135,  421. 
Onager,  i,  424. 

Oppert,  J.,  Orientalist,  work  in  Baby¬ 
lonia,  i,  206;  contributes  to  de¬ 
cipherment  of  Susian,  i,  221;  test 
of  decipherment,  i,  242;  academy 
prize,  i,  244;  on  origin  of  Chaldeans, 
i,  250;  grammatical  discoveries,  i, 
251;  opposes  Hal6vy,  i,  256. 
Orchoe,  i,  432. 

Orient  Gesellschaft,  Deutsche,  i,  313. 
Orient  Society,  German,  i,  313. 

Oriental  Society,  American,  i,  300. 
Ortelius,  Geographical  Treasury,  119. 
Ortolan,  i,  423. 

Osnapper,  see  Ashurbanipal. 

Ostrich,  i,  422. 

Otter,  Jean,  visit  to  Nineveh,  i,  126; 
Babylon,  127. 

Ouseley,  Sir  William,  i,  51. 

Ox,  i,  423. 

P 

Padan,  ii,  104. 

Pa’e,  ii,  457. 

Palm,  i,  422. 

Palu  Su,  i,  407. 

Panammu,  ii,  280n. 

Partridge,  i,  423. 

Payne-Smith,  Dean,  i,  245. 

Pedibast,  ii,  305. 

Pehlevi,  i,  57. 

Pekah,  ii,  291. 

Pelicans,  i,  422. 

Pennsylvania,  University  of,  i,  302; 

first  excavations,  i,  302. 

Peoples  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  i, 
447. 

Persepolis,  i,  7,  17,  22,  24,  30,  48,  53,  74. 
Persika,  i,  391;  of  Dinon,  i,  399. 
Persons,  V.  S.,  i,  312. 

Peters,  John  P.,  organizes  expedition,  i, 
302;  begins  excavations,  i,  303; 
second  expedition,  i,  304. 
Pethahiah  of  Ratisbon,  i,  111. 
Petroleum,  i,  427. 

Philip  III,  i,  13. 

Pigeon,  i,  423. 

Pinches,  ii,  451n. 

Pisiris,  ii,  321. 

Pistachio,  i,  421. 

Place,  Victor,  continues  Botta’s  work  at 
Khorsabad,  i,  199. 

Plane  tree,  i,  421. 

Pliny,  wUeat  crop  in  Babylonia,  i,  419. 
Pognon,  Henri,  i,  258. 

Polvar,  river,  i,  7. 

Pondicherry,  i,  56. 

Porcupine,  i,  424. 

Porphyrius,  i,  512. 

Porter,  Sir  Robert  K.,  visits  Persepolis, 
i,  84;  interpretation  at  Behistun, 


84;  copies  texts  at  Babylon,  154; 
valuable  book,  155. 

Portrait  of  Rustam,  see  Naksh-i-Rus- 
tam. 

Postellus,  i,  28. 

Preusser,  excavates  at  Warka,  i,  330. 
Private  houses,  Assyrian,  i,  323. 
Procession  street,  i,  317. 

Psammeticus,  ii,  436. 

Ptolemy,  Canon  of,  i,  513. 

Pulu,  ii,  298. 

Purchas,  i,  28. 

Puzur-Ashir,  ii,  114,  142. 


R 

Rachmet,  see  Kuh-i-Rahmat. 

Ramusio,  i,  10. 

Rask,  Rasmus  Christian,  i,  74. 

Rassam,  Charles,  i,  189. 

Rassam,  Hormuzd,  assisted  Layard,  i, 
189;  makes  first  expedition,  i,  206; 
discovery  of  deluge  tablet,  i,  211; 
royal  library,  i,  212;  return  to  Eng¬ 
land,  i,  212;  new  expedition,  i,  285; 
bronze  gates  discovered,  i,  285; 
excavations  at  Kuyunjik,  Nimroud, 
Kalah  Shergat,  i,  286;  Babil,  i,  286; 
Cyrus  cylinder,  i,  287;  locates 
Cutha,  i,  290;  Sippar,  i,  291;  ex¬ 
cavations  at  Abu  Habba,  i,  293. 

Rassam,  Nimroud,  i,  338. 

Ratisbon,  Pethahiah  of,  i,  111. 

Rauvolff,  Leonhart,  visits  Babylonia,  i, 
112-114. 

Rawlinson,  Sir  Henry  C.,  birth,  i,  80; 
visit  to  Persia  (1833),  i,  80;  copies 
texts  at  Hamadan,  i,  81;  method 
of  decipherment,  i,  82;  visits  Behis¬ 
tun,  i,  84;  makes  list  of  Persian 
signs,  i,  85;  settled  at  Baghdad,  i, 
86;  in  Afghanistan,  i,  86;  revisits 
Bisutun,  i,  87;  copies  texts,  i,  87- 
89;  Persian  memoir,  i,  89;  help  from 
Norris  and  Grotefend,  i,  90;  inter¬ 
prets  Shalmaneser  text,  i,  191; 
reads  name  of  Jehu,  i,  191;  British 
resident  at  Baghdad,  i,  202;  divides 
territory,  i,  207 ;  discovers  fine  cyl¬ 
inder,  i,  213;  gives  Norris  the 
Behistun  inscription,  i,  219;  trans¬ 
lates  obelisk  texts,  i,  234;  publishes 
great  memoir,  i,  236;  elucidates 
polyphones,  i,  237;  power  as  a 
translator,  i,  239;  test  of  decipher¬ 
ment,  i,  242;  on  Scythian,  i,  248; 
on  Vannic  kings,  i,  267. 

Redcliffe,  Lord  Stratford  de,  i,  177. 

Rennel,  Major,  i,  143. 

Rezin,  ii,  293. 

Rich,  Claudius  James,  i,  78;  birth  and 
early  life,  i,  140;  visits  Babylon, 
i,  141;  excavates  Mujelib6,  i,  142; 
second  visit,  i,  144;  visits  Mosul, 
i,  144;  examines  Neby  Yunus,  i, 
144;  and  Kuyunjik,  i,  145;  sends 
inscriptions  to  London,  i,  146; 
visits  Persepolis,  i,  146;  and  copies 
there,  i,  147;  death  at  Shiraz,  i, 


GENERAL  INDEX 


603 


147;  effect  of  his  work,  i,  148;  fer¬ 
tility  of  Babylonia,  i,  420. 

Rim-Sin,  ii,  69. 

Ritti-Marduk,  ii,  129. 

Robert,  Louis  de,  i,  268. 

Rouet,  i,  171. 

Royal  Irish  Academy  (Dublin),  i,  93. 
Rusa,  ii,  323,  326. 

Rusas,  bronze  shields  of,  i,  269. 
Rustam,  see  Naksh-i-Rustam. 


S 

Sacy,  Silvestre  de,  i,  57,  59. 

Saint  Albert,  Emmanuel  de,  i,  127. 

Saint-Martin,  Abbe,  i,  71. 

Saklowiveh  canal,  i,  409. 

Sallier,  Abbe,  i,  56. 

Salt,  i,  428. 

Sammuramat  (Semiramis),  ii,  254. 

Samsuditana,  ii,  97. 

Samsu-iluna,  ii,  91;  slays  Rim-Sin,  ii, 
93;  great  works,  ii,  94. 

Sandakshatra,  ii,  461. 

Sandasharme,  ii,  438. 

Sandstone,  i,  427. 

Sanduarri,  ii,  401. 

Sardanapalus,  see  Ashurbanipal. 

Sarduris,  ii,  275. 

Sargon  I,  his  origin,  ii,  26;  attacks 
Durilu,  ii,  28;  against  Dilmun,  ii, 
29;  to  the  Dog  River,  ii,  29; 
against  Kasalla,  ii,  29;  revolt,  ii, 
29;  his  power,  ii,  30. 

Sargon  II,  origin,  ii,  311;  sources,  ii, 
313;  fall  of  Samaria,  ii,  314;  coloni¬ 
zations,  ii,  315;  troubles  in  Baby¬ 
lonia,  ii,  316;  rebellion  in  the  west, 
ii,  318,  319;  first  movements  against 
Urartu,  ii,  320;  the  end  of  Carche- 
mish,  ii,  321;  attack  on  Urartu,  ii, 
322;  expedition  into  Arabia,  ii,  328; 
campaign  against  Rusas,  ii,  328; 
great  march  about  Chaldia,  ii,  330; 
land  of  Tabal,  ii,  332;  the  west 
subdued,  ii,  335;  further  difficul¬ 
ties  in  Babylonia,  ii,  338-340;  pro¬ 
claimed  shakkanak  of  Babylon,  ii, 
341;  campaign  against  Merodach- 
baladan,  ii,  342;  western  successes, 
ii,  344;  last  campaigns,  ii,  345-348; 
works  of  peace,  ii,  348-349;  death, 
ii,  349;  great  buildings,  ii,  350; 
estimates  of  his  work,  ii,  350,  351. 

Sarzec,  Ernest  de,  excavations  in  Baby¬ 
lonia,  i,  294;  discovers  storehouse 
of  Ur-Nina,  i,  297;  Gudea  statue,  i, 
298. 

Saulcy,  F.  de,  decipherer,  works  at 
Susian,  i,  218;  translates  entire  in¬ 
scription,  i,  231. 

Sayce,  A.  H.,  contributes  to  Susian,  i, 
221;  analyzes  text  of  Dungi,  i,  251; 
reviews  Assyrian  Dictionary,  i,  261; 
finds  clue  to  Vannic,  i,  269,  270. 

Seheil,  V.,  excavates  Abu  Habba,  i,  351. 

Schiffer,  S.,  ii,  189. 

Schipano,  Mario,  i,  21. 


Schrader,  E.,  i,  308;  opposes  Halfrvy,  i, 
256. 

Schulz,  Fr.  Ed.,  i,  103;  travels  about 
Van,  i,  264. 

Script,  Cuneiform,  i,  354. 

Scythian  language,  i,  248. 

Sea  lands,  country  of,  i,  403;  dynasty 
of,  ii,  180. 

Semiramis,  i,  263;  ii,  254. 

Semites,  original  home  of,  i,  452. 

Senkereh  (Larsa),  i,  430. 

Sennacherib,  sources,  ii,  352,  353;  his 
attitude  to  Babylonia,  354;  Baby¬ 
lonian  opinion,  355;  rebellion  in 
Bab.,  356;  invasion  of  Babylon, 
358;  in  Median  mountains,  360; 
invasion  of  the  west,  361;  situa¬ 
tion  in  Egypt,  363;  attack  on 
Hezekiah,  365;  punishment  of 
Judah,  370;  another  invasion  of 
Babylonia,  374;  in  Cilicia,  375; 
again  in  Babylonia,  376;  battle  of 
Khalule,  380;  Bab.  again  invaded 
and  the  city  destroyed,  381;  Arab¬ 
ian  campaign,  383;  second  cam- 
paign  against  Hezekiah,  385;  build¬ 
ing  at  Nineveh,  388;  city  fortifica¬ 
tions,  390;  city  aqueduct,  391. 

Sewe,  ii,  308n. 

Shabaka,  ii,  363,  434. 

Shagarakti-Shuriash,  date  of,  i,  493; 
history,  ii,  123. 

Shah-Kuh,  i,  3. 

Shalim-akhum,  ii,  137. 

Shalmaneser,  bronze  gates,  i,  285. 

Shalmaneser  I,  sources,  ii,  150;  cam¬ 
paigns,  first  crossing  of  the  Eu¬ 
phrates,  ii,  151;  against  Mitanni,  ii, 
152;  style  of  his  inscriptions,  ii,  152; 
builds  new  capital  at  Calah,  ii,  153; 
mention  of  Ushpia  and  Shamshi- 
Adad,  ii,  153;  date,  i,  507. 

Shalmaneser  II,  ii,  189. 

Shalmaneser  III,  sources,  ii,  222,  223; 
Aramaean  question,  ii,  224;  western 
invasions,  ii,  225,  226-234;  Urartu, 
ii,  235,  eastern  campaigns,  ii,  239; 
Babylonia,  ii,  241;  works  of  peace, 
ii,  243;  artistic  productions,  ii,  245; 
temple  of  Anu  and  Adad,  ii,  247; 
rebellion,  ii,  249. 

Shalmaneser  IV,  ii,  259. 

Shalmaneser  V,  ii,  301;  conditions  in  his 
reign,  ii,  303;  in  Israel,  ii,  303;  in 
Egypt,  ii,  304;  the  difficulties  with 
Israel,  ii,  305,  306;  Hoshea  cap¬ 
tured,  ii,  307;  failure  of  campaign 
against  Israel,  ii,  309. 

Shamash-ibni,  ii,  398. 

Shamash-khegal,  canal,  ii,  78. 

Shamash-mudammik,  ii,  190. 

Shamash-shum-ukin,  ii,  445. 

Shamshi  Adad,  patesi,  date  of,  i,  505. 

Shamshi-Adad  I,  i,  322;  ii,  139. 

Shamshi-Adad  II,  date  of,  i,  506. 

Shamshi-Adad  IV,  ii,  176. 

Shamshi  Adad  V,  ii,  250;  campaigns,  ii, 
251;  his  wife  Sammuramat,  ii,  254. 

Shargali-sharri,  ii,  36;  invades  the  west, 
ii,  36;  against  Gutium,  ii,  37;  build- 


604 


GENERAL  INDEX 


ing  operations,  ii,  37;  temples  in 
Babylon,  ii,  38;  artistic  advance,  ii, 
38. 

Sharlak,  king  of  Kutu,  ii,  37. 
Shaushatar,  ii,  143. 

Sheep,  i,  423. 

Sherley,  see  Shirley. 

Sheshonk  III,  ii,  305. 

Sheshonk  IV,  ii,  305. 

Shiraz,  i,  3. 

Shirley,  Anthony,  visits  Babylon,  i,  117; 
and  Nineveh,  i,  118;  his  allusions 
to  Bible,  i,  118. 

Shirpurla,  i,  433. 

Shubari,  ii,  145. 

Shuruppak  (Fara),  i,  319,  434. 

Shushan,  i,  14,  28. 

Shutarna  I,  ii,  144. 

Shutur-nankhundi,  ii,  340. 

Shuzigash,  ii,  121. 

Sibe,  ii,  306. 

Silurus,  i,  422. 

Simbar-shipak,  ii,  180. 

Simplicius,  i,  512. 

Simurru,  ii,  56. 

Sin-idinam,  ii,  85. 

Sin-magir,  ii,  65. 

Sin-muballit,  ii,  80. 

Sin-shar-ishkun,  ii,  472,  485. 
Sin-shum-lishir,  ii,  471. 

Sippai,  ii,  181. 

Sippar,  site  discovered,  i,  291. 

Smith,  George,  engraver,  studies  As¬ 
syrian,  i,  276;  discovers  name  of 
Jehu,  i,  276n.;  deciphers  Cypriote, 
i,  277;  edits  Ashurbanipal  texts,  i, 
278;  reads  Deluge  tablet,  i,  278; 
Daily  Telegraph  expedition,  i,  280; 
second  expedition,  i,  281;  Assyrian 
Discoveries,  i,  282;  Chaldean  Gene¬ 
sis,  i,  283;  third  expedition,  i,  283; 
death,  i,  284. 

Snakes,  i,  423. 

So,  ii,  306n. 

Solomon,  i,  49. 

Sources  of  the  history,  i,  377. 

Stade,  ii,  365. 

Stagnunl,  Assyrium,  i,  416. 

Stelae,  Assyrian,  i,  325. 

Stenko  Rasin,  i,  101. 

Stone  from  Arabia,  i,  425. 

Storks,  i,  422. 

Strabo,  fertility  of  Babylonia,  i,  419. 
Sulla,  i,  390. 

Sumerian  people,  i,  448. 

Sumerian  language,  i,  361;  its  charac¬ 
teristics,  i,  362. 

Sumerian,  early  history,  ii,  1. 

Sumerian,  use  of  the  name,  i,  251. 
Sumu-abi,  king  of  Babylon,  ii,  76. 
Sumu-la-ilu,  ii,  77. 

Susa,  i,  84. 

Susiana,  ii,  100. 

Suzis,  i,  14. 

Swans,  i,  422. 

Syennesis,  the,  of  Cilicia,  ii,  566. 

Sylva  y  Figueroa,  i,  17,  122. 
Synchronistic  History,  i,  503;  ii,  115,  257. 
Synkellos,  the,  i,  391. 

Syro-Ephraimitic  War,  ii,  2S9. 


T 

Talbot,  Fox,  decipherer,  i,  240;  pro¬ 
poses  test,  i,  241. 

Tamarisk,  i,  421. 

Tammaritu,  ii,  442,  449. 

Tandamani,  ii,  434. 

Tanut-Amon  (Tandamani),  ii,  434. 

Tarkhunazi,  ii,  334. 

Tarku,  i,  101,  102,  103,  104. 

Tatian,  i,  388n. 

Taurus,  Mount,  i,  24. 

Tavernier,  Jean  Baptiste,  i,  34. 

Taylor,  J.  E.,  works  at  Mugheir,  i,  203; 
at  Abu  Sharein  and  Tel-el-Lahm,  i, 
205. 

Tazzi-gurumash,  ii,  103. 

Telegraph,  Dailjq  expedition  to  Assyria, 

i,  280. 

Tel-el-Lahm,  i,  205. 

Tell-el  Amarna  letters,  i,  333. 

Telloh,  excavations,  i,  294. 

Telloh  (Lagash),  i,  433. 

Temperatures  in  Babylonia,  i,  417. 

Testament,  Old,  as  a  source,  i,  387. 

Test  of  Assyrian  decipherment,  i,  242, 
243. 

Teumman,  ii,  441. 

Teuspa,  ii,  419. 

Theophrastus,  fertility  of  Babylonia,  i, 
419. 

Thevenot,  i,  100. 

Thomas,  F.,  i,  205. 

Thompson,  R.  C.,  excavations  in  Assy¬ 
ria,  i,  348;  at  Bisutun,  i,  349. 

Thrush,  i,  423. 

Thutmosis  III,  ii,  143. 

Tidal,  ii,  84. 

Tiglathpileser  I,  prism  of,  i,  322  and 
note;  date  of,  i,  504;  ii,  163;  sources, 

ii,  165;  attack  on  Mushke,  ii,  166; 
on  Kummukh,  ii,  168;  Shubari,  ii, 
170;  Kharia  and  Qurkhi,  ii,  171; 
lands  of  Nairi,  ii,  172;  Aramaeans, 
ii,  173;  summary  of  five  campaigns, 
ii,  174;  Babylonia,  ib.;  peaceful 
achievements;  capital  at  Asshur,  ii, 
175;  sports,  ii,  176;  effects  of  his 
reign,  ii,  177. 

Tiglathpileser  III,  ii,  189. 

Tiglathpileser  IV,  early  life,  ii,  263; 
sources,  ii,  266;  first  campaign 
against  Bab.,  ii,  268;  new  adminis¬ 
tration  of  conquests,  ii,  269;  east¬ 
ern  invasion,  ii,  271;  danger  in  the 
north,  ii,  273;  great  victories  over 
Sarduris,  ii,  275;  against  Arpad,  ii, 
277;  Nairi  campaign,  ii,  279;  Aza- 
riah  of  Yaudi,  ii,  280;  Aramaean 
rebellion,  ii,  283;  against  Urartu,  ii, 
284;  in  the  west,  ii,  285;  in  Israel, 
ii,  291;  against  Damascus,  ii,  292; 
in  Babylonia,  ii,  294-297;  king  of 
Babylon,  ii,  298;  estimate  of  his 
character,  ii,  300. 

Tigris,  river,  i,  408. 

Tirhaka,  ii,  384,  431,  433. 

Toma,  Dawood,  i,  290. 

Tombs,  Assyrian  royal,  i,  327. 

Tower  of  Babel,  i,  123,  124. 


GENERAL  INDEX  605 


Toy,  Crawford  H.,  i,  300. 

Transportation,  river,  i,  425. 

Tudela,  Benjamin  of,  see  Benjamin. 

Tukulti-Ashur,  ii,  160. 

Tukulti-Ninib  I,  inscription  of,  i,  327; 
date  of,  i,  504;  invades  Babylonia, 
ii,  123;  death,  ii,  124;  conquests  in 
west  and  northwest,  ii,  154,  155; 
invasion  of  Babylonia,  ii,  155; 
founded  the  city  Kar-Tukulti-Nin- 
ib,  ii,  156;  rebellion  and  death,  ii, 
157. 

Tukulti-Ninib  II,  ii,  190;  begins  new 
period,  ii,  191;  campaign  in  Baby¬ 
lonia,  ii,  192. 

Tulul-Akir,  i,  328. 

Turtledove,  i,  423. 

Tychsen,  Olav  Gerhard,  i,  52. 


U 

Uldnzer,  ii,  295. 

Ukush,  ii,  20. 

Umma  (Jokha),  i,  434. 
Umman-minanu,  ii,  378. 

Ur,  i,  429. 

Ur,  dynasty  of,  ii,  50-61. 

Ur,  favorable  location  of,  ii,  48. 
Ura-imitti,  ii,  65. 

Ur-abba,  ii,  51. 

Ur-babbar,  ii,  39. 

Ur-Bau  of  Lagash,  ii,  42. 

Urdamani,  see  Tandamani. 

Ur-Engur,  ii,  50. 

Ur-Nina,  inscription  of,  i,  366;  store¬ 
house  of,  i,  297;  history,  ii,  10. 
Ur-Ningirsu,  ii,  50. 

Ur-Ninib,  ii,  64. 

Urtaki,  ii,  441. 

Urtaku,  ii,  399. 

Uru,  i,  433. 

Uru-azagga,  i,  433. 

Uruk  (Erech),  i,  431. 

Urukagina,  ii,  16. 

Urumush,  ii,  32. 

Urus,  i,  424. 

Urzage,  ii,  10. 

Ushpia,  ii,  136. 

Ush-shi,  ii,  103. 

Utnapishtim,  hero  of  deluge,  i,  319,  435. 
Utug,  ii,  8. 

Uvakshatra,  ii,  475. 

Uzziah,  ii,  280n.,  288. 

V 

Valle,  Pietro  della,  i,  21;  visits  Babylon 
and  secured  bricks,  i,  123. 

Vannic  decipherment,  i,  265,  266. 
Vashti,  i,  14. 

Vazaraka,  i,  77. 

Vendidad-Sad6,  i,  57. 


Vine,  i,  421. 

Vinegar,  i,  419. 

W 

Walnut,  i,  421. 

Ward,  William  Hayes,  leader  of  Wolfe 
Expedition,  i,  301. 

Warka  (Erech),  excavations  at,  i,  330. 
Week,  the,  i,  462. 

Weissbach,  F.  H.,  concludes  Susian  de¬ 
cipherment,  i,  222;  Sumerian  ques¬ 
tion,  i,  247n.;  in  Babylon,  i,  317. 
Werdi,  i,  409. 

Westergaard,  N.  L.,  i,  78;  deciphering 
Susian,  i,  217;  further  suggestions, 
i,  220. 

Whewell,  Dr.,  i,  242. 

Wild  ass,  i,  424. 

Wild-cat,  i,  424. 

Wilkinson,  Sir  G.,  i,  243. 

Williams,  Colonel  W.  F.,  surveyor,  i, 

200. 

Wilson,  H.  H„  i,  243. 

Wine,  i,  419. 

Witsen,  i,  101. 

Wolfe  Expedition  to  Babylonia,  i,  301. 
Wuswas,  i,  331. 

X 

Xanthus,  i,  399. 

Xenophon,  i,  391. 

Xerxes,  porch  of,  i,  4;  hall  of,  i,  4,  5. 
Xerxes  I,  i,  4,  7,  66,  68,  69. 

Y 

Ya-ubidi,  ii,  318. 

Yahi-melek,  ii,  437. 

Yakhzir-ilu,  ii,  78. 

Yakinlu,  ii,  437. 

Yanzu,  royal  title,  ii,  239. 

Yauta,  ii,  459. 

Year,  the  Moon,  i,  462. 

Year,  the  Sun,  i,  462. 

Yewepet,  ii,  305. 

Yezd,  i,  9. 

Yule,  i,  10. 

Z 

Zab,  upper  and  lower,  i,  409. 

Zab-Dadi,  ii,  201. 

Zabibi,  ii,  292. 

Zabum,  ii,  79. 

Zamama,  i,  435. 

Zamama-3hum-iddin,  ii,  126. 

Zedekiah,  ii,  507,  518. 

Zend-Avesta,  i,  57. 

Zidka,  ii,  387. 

Zigati,  ii,  244. 

Zikurrat  of  Ashur  temple,  i,  321. 
Zimmern,  H.,  i,  259. 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS 


This  list  is  confined  chiefly  to  refer¬ 
ences  in  the  notes.  The  General  Index 
may  also  be  consulted. 

A 

Abel,  L.,  i,  489n;  ii,  250n,  394n. 
Aberdare,  Lord,  i,  l71n. 

Abydenus,  ii,  479n. 

Adler,  C.,  i,  92n. 

Adler,  M.  N.,  i,  llOn. 

Ainsworth,  i,  407n,  428n,  439n,  446n. 
Amiaud,  ii,  42n,  223n. 

Andrae,  W.,  i,  319n,  322n,  323n,  324n, 
325n,  415n,  434n;  ii,  135n,  136n, 
140n,  150n, 154n,  190n,  247n, 254n. 
Andreas,  F.  C.,  i,  8n. 

Arrian,  i,  315n. 

B 

Bachmann,  i,  329n. 

Ball,  C.  J.,  ii,  532,  590n. 

Banks,  E.  J.,  i,  312n. 

Barnes,  W.  E.,  ii,  499n. 

Baumstark,  i,  398n,  435n;  ii,  590. 
Beauchamp,  i,  134n. 

Belck,  ii,  240n. 

Bell,  Gertrude  L.,  ii,  135n. 

Belser,  ii,  184n. 

Benish,  A.,  i,  11  In. 

Benzinger,  ii:  228n,  289n. 

Bernadakis,  i,  39 5n. 

Berossos,  ii,  530n,  549n. 

Bezold,  i,  259n,  260n,  337n,  339n,  486n, 
489n,  492n,  502n;  ii,  104n,  359n, 
381n,  427n,  547n,  550n. 

Billerbeck,  ii,  lOOn,  106n,  195n,  201n, 
380n,  456n,  478n,  588n. 

Blunt,  A.,  i,  417n. 

Boissier,  A.,  i,  136n,  465n;  ii,  32n,  61n, 
63n.  _ 

Bonomi,  i,  168n. 

Booth,  A.  J.,  i,  7n,  39n,  S4n,  222n,  228n. 
Bork,  ii,  112n. 

Boscawen,  i,  284n. 

Botta,  ii,  313n. 

Brandis,  ii,  371n. 

Breasted,  i,  493n;  ii,  143n,  357n,  434n. 
Brinton,  D.  G.,  i,  453n. 

Brockelmann,  i,  502n. 

Bruce,  W.  N.,  i,  17ln. 

Bi-uin,  C.  de,  i,  41n. 

Buckingham,  i,  152n. 

Budde,  i,  404n. 

Budge,  i,  333n,  525n,  539n;  ii,  160n, 
161n,  194n,  197n,  214n,  394n,  547n. 
Burney,  C.  F.,  ii,  499n. 

Burnouf,  E.,  i,  75n,  102n,  104n. 

Bury,  J.  B.,  i,  394n. 


C 

Candolle,  A.  de,  i,  421n. 

Cartwright,  J.,  i,  120n. 

Chardin,  i,  32n. 

Chesney,  i,  408n,  412n,  427n. 

Chejme,  ii,  526n. 

Churchill,  i,  36n. 

Cicero,  i,  398n. 

Clay,  i,  415n,  521n;  ii,  75n,  87n,  lOln, 
128n,  451n,  472n. 

Cordier,  i,  lOn. 

Cornill,  ii,  53 In. 

Coste,  P.,  i,  8n. 

Cowell,  i,  45n,  488n. 

Craig,  J.  A.,  ii,  223n. 

Cuinet,  V.,  ii,  195n. 

Cumont,  F.,  i,  432n. 

Curzon,  G.  N.,  i,  7n. 

D 

Daulier,  A.,  i,  37n. 

Davies,  J.,  i,  26n. 

Delattre,  ii,  173n,  195n,  475n. 
Delitzsch,  i,  256n,  260n,  284n,  313n, 
314n,  317n,  319n,  321n,  331n,  479n, 
489n,  494n,  504n,  538n;  ii,  lOOn, 
104n,  115n,  123n,  151n,  213n,  216n, 
239n,  244n,  347n,  357n,  398n,  440n, 
465n. 

Dhorme,  i,  379n. 

Diels,  i,  512n. 

Dieulafoy,  i,  8n. 

Dindorf,  i,  389n,  514n. 

Diodorus,  i,  84n,  394n,  437n. 

Donner,  i,  44Sn. 

Driver,  ii,  84n,  233n. 

E 

Epping,  i,  468n. 

Eusebius,  i,  378n,  388n;  ii,  527n,  543n, 
546n. 

Evetts,  i,  129n;  ii,  472n,  486n. 
Eyssenhardt,  i,  460n. 

F 

Fisher,  i,  415n. 

Flandin,  E.,  i,  8n,  170n. 

Freudenthal,  J.,  i,  390n. 

G 

Garstang,  ii,  84n,  214n. 

Gautier,  ii,  191n. 

Gebhardt,  i,  388n. 

Gelderen,  C.  van,  i,  473n. 

Gellius,  i,  460n. 

Genouillac,  H.  de,  i,  464n,  465n. 
Giesebrecht,  ii,  531n. 


606 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS 


607 


Gilmore,  i,  392,  393n. 
Ginzel,  F.  K.,  i,  468n. 
Glaser,  ii,  328n. 

Goeje,  de,  ii,  398n. 

Gray,  G.  B.,  ii,  282n. 

Grey,  E.,  i,  23n. 

Guidi,  J.,  i,  452n. 

Guthe,  ii,  521n,  188n. 
Gutschmid,  A.  von,  i,  397n. 


H 

Hagen,  F.  H.  von,  i,  75n. 

Hagen,  ii,  554n,  564n,  569n. 

Hager,  J.,  i,  137n. 

Hakluyt,  R.,  i,  9n,  116n. 

Halevy,  J.,  i,  254n,  257n,  448n,  451n. 

Hall,  H.  R.,  i,  449n,  498;  ii,  7n. 

Halma,  Abb6,  i,  514n. 

Handcock,  ii,  392n,  4G5n. 

Harnack,  i,  388n. 

Harper,  E.,  i,  379n. 

Harper,  R.  F.,  ii,  88n,  346n. 

Haupt,  P.,  i,  448n;  ii,  380n,  545n. 

Havers,  G.,  i,  23n. 

Heath,  D.  D.,  i,  397n. 

Heeren,  A.  H.  L.,  i,  70n. 

Heiberg,  J.  S.,  i,  512n. 

Hermann,  i,  448n. 

Herodotus,  i,  394n,  404n,  41  In,  419n, 
427n;  ii,  385n,  386n,  499n,  526n, 
529n,  536n,  565n,  567n,  568n. 

Hertz,  i,  4G0n. 

Herzfeld,  E.,  i,  8n,  73n. 

Heuzey,  L.,  i,  297n,  298n,  299n,  300n, 
380n,  433n;  ii,  9n,  lln,  42n. 

Hilprecht,  H.  V.,  i,  116n,  303n,  304n, 
306n,  307n,  474n,  490n,  492n,  500n, 
527n;  ii,  20n,  22n,  32n,  34n,  35n, 
37n,  50n,  53n,  G4n,  66n,  lOOn, 
103n,  104n,  122n,  123n,  128n, 

129n,  130n,  193n,  469n,  485n,  525n. 

Hincks,  E.,  i,  217n,  226n,  232n,  233n, 
238n,_  239n,  248n,  26Gn. 

Hogarth,  i,  407n. 

Holtzmann,  A.,  i,  79n. 

Holzapfel,  i,  39 In. 

Hommel,  i,  229n,  448n,  452n,  500n, 
513n;  ii,  28n,  34n,  48n,  124n,  198n, 
207n,_  357n,  484n. 

Hrozny,  ii,  4n. 

Hiising,  G.,  i,  221n. 

Hyde,  T.,  i,  99n. 


J 

Jackson,  A.  V.  W.,  i,  8n. 

Jastrow,  M.,  Jr.,  i,  442n,  453n,  485n; 
ii,  32n,  493n. 

Jensen,  i,  259n,  378n,  379n,  457n;  ii, 
31n,  37n,  42n,  46n,  97n,  104n,  112n, 
127n,  378n,  379n,  427n,  434n,  435n, 
437n,  439n,  440n,  448n,  450n,  452n, 
453n,  45Gn,  457n,  4G0n,  461n,  4G3n, 
525n. 

Jeremias,  A.,  i,  4Gln;  ii,  478n. 

Jeremias,  J.,  ii,  207n. 

Johns,  ii,  87n,  88n,  139n,  334n,  346n, 
392n. 


Jones,  F.,  i,  212n. 

Jordan,  J.,  i,  325n,  330n. 
Josephus,  i,  389n;  ii,  530n,  542n. 
Jouannin,  i,  348n. 


K 

Kaempfer,  E.,  i,  39n. 

Karbe,  ii,  481n. 

Kaulen,  i,  229n. 

Keane,  A.  H.,  i,  448n. 

King,  L.  W.,  i,  84n,  89n,  347n,  348n, 
350n,  379n,  380n,  433n,  479n,  481n, 
482n,  483n,  484n,  485n,  486n,  487n, 
493n,  495n,  498n,  499n,  51 9n,  520n, 
522n,  523n,  525 n,  526n,  527n,  528n, 
529n,  530n,  531n,  532n,  539n;  ii, 
4n,  28n,  29n,  31n,  33n,  51n,  54n, 
65n,  77n,  84n,  86n,  89n,  9  In,  93n, 
94n,  95n,  96n,  97n,  117n,  131n, 
140n,  147n,  154n,  160n,  161n,  181n, 
184n,  194n,  197n,  214n,  376n,  391n, 
450n,  472n,  484n,  488n,  489n, 491 n, 
493n. 

Kittel,  ii,  228n,  372n. 

Knudtzon,  i,  335n,  379n,  471n,  520n, 
524n,  541n;  ii,  112n,  116n,  117n, 
H9n,  120n,  184n,  394n,  407n,  41 3n, 
414n. 

Koberle,  ii,  531n. 

Koldewey,  R.,  i,  286n,  314n,  315n,  316n, 
317n,  318n,  330n,  436n;  ii,  38n, 
39n,  462n. 

Krall,  J.,  i,  452n. 

Ktesias,  ii,  568n. 

Kugler,  i,  461n,  464n. 


L 

Landsberger,  i,  462n. 

Langdon,  S.,  i,  464n,  465n,  492n,  493n; 
ii,  79n,  80n,  477n,  493n,  529n,  532n, 
539n,  540n,  547n,  550n,  555n,  560n, 
561n,  563n,  590n. 

LanglGs,  L.,  i,  34n. 

Lanzani,  C.,  i,  391n. 

Lassen,  i,  79n. 

Lauer,  M.,  i,  264n. 

Layard,  A.  H.,  i,  175n,  177n,  186n, 
191n,  193n,  195n,  198n,  306n;  ii, 
198n,  220n,  313n,  470n. 

Lehmann-Haupt,  i,  261n,  271n,  273n, 
325n,  457n,  471n, 494n,  512n,  524n; 
ii,  lOOn,  118n,  193n,  309n,  323n, 
371n,  444 n. 

Le  Gac,  Y.,  ii,  42n. 

Lenormant,  i,  252n,  267n;  ii,  254n, 
357n,  398n. 

Lhotzky,  ii,  194n. 

Lincke,  ii,  481n, 

Lindl,  E.,  i,  479n,  4S2n. 

Loftus,  W.  K.,  i,  201n,  429n,  430n, 
432n. 

Lowenstein,  i,  224n. 

Lucian,  i,  394n. 

Luckenbill,  i,  506n,  521n,  538n;  ii,  138n, 
140n,  150n,  152n. 

Luschan,  ii,  394n. 

Lyon,  ii,  88n. 


608 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS 


M 

Macrobius,  i,  460n. 

Mariette,  ii,  386n,  434n. 

Marquardt,  i,  392n. 

Marti,  ii,  385n,  526n. 

Martinet,  i,  109n. 

Maspero,  ii,  28n,  199n,  202n,  208n, 
209n,  229n,  357n,  412n,  434n,  519n. 
Matzat,  i,  396n. 

Mayhoff,  i,  405n,  460n. 

McCurdy,  ii,  lOOn. 

McGee,  ii,  493n,  532n. 

ISIeineke,  i,  405n,  437n. 

Meinhold,  ii,  370n. 

Meissner,  ii,  61  n,  63n,  395n. 
Messerschmidt,  i,  321n,  480n,  506n, 
53Sn;  ii,  138n,  140n,  150n,  152n, 
154n,  313n,  457n,  461n,  477n, 

546n,  549 n. 

Meyer,  E.,  i,  449n,  453n,  493n,  510n, 
519n;  ii,  174n,  370n,  440n. 

Meyer,  W.,  i,  62n. 

Michaux,  i,  136n. 

Millin,  i,  132n,  136n,  139n. 

Mitford,  E.  D.,  i,  I73n. 

Mohl,  J.,  i,  166n. 

Mordtmann,  A.  D.,  i,  220n,  268n. 
Morgan,  J.  de,  ii,  33n,  34n. 

Morier,  J.  J.,  i,  47n,  48n,  51n. 

Muller,  C.,  i,  388n,  397n,  399n,  4G0n. 
Miiiler,  F.  M.,  i,  235n. 

Muller,  W.  M.,  i,  404n,  405n. 
Muller-Didot,  ii,  479n,  546n,  549n, 
563n,  568n,  590n. 

Murdter,  i,  494n;  ii,  357n. 

N 

Niebuhr,  C.,  i,  46n,  335n. 

Niebuhr,  M.  von,  i,  392n. 

Nikel,  J.,  i,  399n. 

Noldeke,  T.,  i,  453n. 

Norris,  E.,  i,  219n. 

O 

Olearius,  A.,  i,  26n. 

Olivier,  G.  A.,  i,  135n,  421n. 

Olmstead,  A.  T.,  i,  503n;  ii,  313n,  315n, 
335n,  347n,  427n. 

Oppert,  i,  136n,  206n,  221n,  256n,  437n; 

ii,  lOOn,  306n,  313n,  483n. 

Otter,  J.,  i,  127n. 

Ouseley,  W.,  i,  51n. 

P 

Peiser,  F.  E.,  i,  480n,  493n,  504n; 
ii,  35n,  115n,  181n,  184n,  194n, 
207n,  223n,  547n,  550n. 

Peters,  J.  P.,  i,  301n,  302n,  304n,  417n, 
429n,  430n,  432n, 433n, 436n, 437n; 
ii,  209n. 

Petrie,  i,  333n,  143n. 

Pinches,  i,  47ln,  479n,  490n;  ii,  84n, 
103n,  121  n;  ii,  207n,  223n,  529n, 
554n. 

Pinkerton,  J.,  i,  23n. 

Place,  V.,  i,  199n. 

Pliny,  i,  405n,  427n,  460n. 


Plutarch,  i,  395n,  417n. 

Poebel,  i,  472n,  473n,  476n. 

Pognon,  ii,  519n. 

Poole,  S.  L.,  i,  92n. 

Porter,  R.  K.,  i,  84n,  154n,  415n,  435n. 

Prasek,  J.  V.,  i,  397n. 

Price,  ii,  43n. 

Prince,  ii,  543n. 

Proksch,  O.,  ii,  85n. 

Ptolemaeus,  ii,  lOOn. 

Pumpelly,  R.,  ii,  7n. 

Purchas,  i,  21n,  117n. 

R 

Radau,  i,  464n,  465n;  ii,  63n. 

Ramusio,  i,  lOn. 

Ranke,  H.,  i,  474n,  527n,  539n;  ii,  76n. 

Rask,  R.,  i,  74n. 

Rassam,  H.,  i,  21  In,  286n,  287n,  290n, 
291n,  292n, 322n, 350n,  437n,  439n; 
ii,  207n,  220n. 

Rauch,  i,  390n. 

Rawlinson,  G.,  i,  81n,  90n;  ii,  I98n. 

Rawlinson,  H.  C.,  i,  89n,  214n,  502n; 
ii,  28n,  34n,  200n,  293n. 

Reisner,  ii,  4n. 

Renan,  i,  452n. 

Reuter,  i,  330n. 

Rich,  C.  J.,  i,  147n,  427n,  439n. 

Rodwell,  ii,  I94n. 

Rogers,  R.  W.,  i,  31  In,  378n,  380n, 
462n,  471n,  489n,  502n,  503n,  533n; 
ii,  7n,  68n,  86n,  88n,  95n,  96n, 
lOOn,  283n,  291n,  298n,  358n,  361n, 
3G4n, 365n, 367n, 372n,  384n,  385n, 
409n,  529n,  538n. 

Rost,  P„  i,  392n,  492n;  ii,  lOOn,  121n, 
122n,  127n,  287n,  395n. 

Rouet,  i,  I7ln. 

S 

Sachau,  E.,  i,  313n,  430n,  432,  436, 
439n,  444n,  445n;  ii,  213n. 

Sacy  S.  de,  i,  57n. 

Saint  Martin,  i,  104n. 

S^rre,  F.,  i,  8n. 

Sarzec,  E.  de,  i,  380n,  433n;  ii,  9n,  lln, 
42n. 

Sayce,  A.  H.,  i,  221n,  265n,  267n,  279n, 
333n, 392n, 397n,  448n,  453n,  479n; 
ii,  84n,  106n,  172n,  174n,  178n, 
194n,  195n,  199n,  202n,  213n,  233n, 
240n,  254n,  440n,  461n,  484n,  527n. 

Scheil,  V.,  i,  352n,  378n,  434n,  473n, 
482n;  ii,  31n,  34n,  63n,  66n,  84n, 
88n,  141n,  149n,  191n,  192n,  222n, 
384n,  485. 

Schiffer,  S.,  i,  405n;  ii,  152n,  197n,  198n, 
398n. 

Schipano,  M.,  i,  22n. 

Schmid,  W.,  i,  394n. 

Schnabel,  i,  507n,  510n,  522n,  544n; 
ii,  193n. 

SchSne,  A.,  i,  378n,  388n;  ii,  7n. 

Schorr,  M.,  ii,  66n,  69n,  76n,  77n,  78n, 
79n,  82n,  91n,  92n,  94n. 

Schrader,  E.,  i,  253n,  250n,  453n,  471n, 
502n,  503n;  ii,  150n,  191n,  213n, 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS 


214n,  228n,  2S0n,  313n,  440n,  451n, 
529n,  543n. 

Schwartz,  E.,  i,  388n. 

Shirley,  A.,  i,  117n. 

Skene,  ii,  213n. 

Skinner,  ii,  85n. 

Smith,  G.,  i,  276n,  486n,  498n;  ii,  161n, 
428n,  483n. 

Smith,  G.  A.,  ii,  368n,  385n. 

Smith,  S.  A.,  i,  442n;  ii,  129n,  428n, 
437n. 

Sourdille,  C.,  i,  397n. 

Stade,  ii,  308n,  46 In. 

Staphorst,  N.,  i,  112n. 

Steindorff,  ii,  143n,  434n. 

Stevenson,  J.  H.,  i,  399n. 

Stolze,  F.,  i,  Sn. 

Strabo,  i,  405n,  427n,  437n;  ii,  100n, 
527n. 

Strassmaier,  ii,  493n,  495n,  529n,  547n. 

Streck,  ii,  171n,  427n. 

Strong,  i,  378n;  ii,  178n. 

T 

Talbot,  F.,  i,  242n. 

Tatian,  i,  38Sn,  389n. 

Taylor,  J.  E.,  i,  204n. 

Theophrastus,  i,  417n,  419n. 

Thureau-Dangin,  F.,  i,  29Sn,  299n, 
380n,  415n,  435n,  464n,  473n,  477n, 
478n;  ii,  4n,  9n,  lOn,  lln,  12n,  14n, 
17n,  18n,  19n,  22n,  36n,  38n,  43n, 
46n,  50n,  51n,  52n,  57n,  58n,  59n, 
60n,  61n,  62n,  63n,  64n,  65n,  68n, 
69n,  76n,  313n,  330n. 

Tiele,  C.  P.,  i,  453n,  513n;  ii,  84n,  171n, 
174n,  236n,  4S4n,  518n,  527n,  546n. 

Tobin,  C.,  i,  444n. 

Tolman,  H.  C.,  i,  399n. 

Tompkins,  ii,  36n. 

Truenfeld,  von,  ii,  481n. 

Tucker,  i,  448n. 


U 

Ungnad,  i,  380n,  454n,  52ln;  ii,  384a. 

V 

Vogel,  i,  437n. 

W 

Ward,  W.  FI.,  i,  301n. 

Watt,  ii,  392n. 

Weber,  O.,  i,  379n,  520n,  541n. 

Weissbach,  F.  H.,  i,  7n,  222n,  247b, 
317n,  519n;  ii,  66n,  84n,  493n. 

Wellhausen,  ii,  461n. 

Wells,  J.,  i,  397n. 

WTestergaard,  N.  L.,  i,  217n. 

Wilcken,  U.,  ii,  254n. 

Wilson,  ii,  213n. 

Winckler,  H.,  i,  333n,  335n,  378n,  453n, 
486n,  489n,  492n, 503n,  504n,  513n, 
514n,  632n;  ii,  2n,  28n,  37n,  88n, 
89n,  lOOn,  103n,  104n,  105n,  113n, 
115n,  116n,  121n,  122n, 124n,  I28n, 
143n,  183n,  189n,  214n,  222n,  228n, 
280n,  306n,  309n,  313n,  324n,  325n, 
328n,  335n,  339n,  349n,  357,  37ln, 
394n,  395n,  409n,  41 2n,  428n, 462n, 
472n,  475n,  484n,  486n,  493n,  519n, 
529n,  532n,  539n,  540n. 

Witsen,  N.,  i,  102n. 

Wright,  T.,  i,  HOn. 

X 

Xenophon,  ii,  481n. 

Y 

Yorke,  V.  W.,  i,  407n. 

Yule,  H.,  i,  9n. 

Z 

Zephaniah,  ii,  480n. 

Zimmern,  i,  259n,  379n;  ii,  84n. 


